[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 167 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15029-S15045]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

    NOMINATION OF MAJ. GEN. ROBERT T. CLARK TO BE LIEUTENANT GENERAL

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, pursuant to the order of November 14, I 
ask that the Senate now proceed to executive session to begin 
consideration of Executive Calendar No. 418, the nomination of Maj. 
Gen. Robert T. Clark to be Lieutenant General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Maj. Gen. 
Robert T. Clark to be Lieutenant General.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there are a number of Senators who desire 
to speak. I will just say a few words. To accommodate my distinguished 
colleague from Kentucky, who has been a valiant supporter of this 
nomination and very persistent over this long period of time, I will 
yield the floor. He then could be followed by the Senator from 
Massachusetts and then I would continue my remarks.
  I wonder if I just might ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Virginia proceed for not to exceed 3 or 4 minutes, followed by the 
Senator from Kentucky for about 10 or 12 minutes, followed by the 
Senator from Massachusetts. How much time does my colleague desire?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think 40 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Not to exceed a period of about 40 minutes for the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think Senator Dayton also had 15 minutes. I think 
there is a unanimous consent agreement for this; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I was not able to hear.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think there is a consent that has been agreed to 
whereby there are 2 hours equally divided, with 40 minutes for myself 
and 15 minutes for Senator Dayton.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct on that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will not necessarily take all of that time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  Major General Clark is a highly qualified officer for promotion to 
the rank of lieutenant general. I have met with him several times. His 
proposed assignment by the Secretary of Defense is to be Commander of 
the Fifth U.S. Army.
  He was first nominated for this position in the fall of 2002. He has 
appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in executive 
session on two separate occasions. On both occasions he conducted 
himself with deference and respect not only for the serious issues at 
hand but for all persons involved in this tragic sequence of facts 
which preceded his nomination.
  He expressed great respect for the constitutionally-based advise and 
consent power and the responsibility of the Senate to look into this 
nomination with great thoroughness. Not surprisingly, General Clark has 
the full support of the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Schoomaker, 
and the civilian leadership of the Army for this promotion. Indeed, the 
Secretary of Defense personally, in a very respectful way, has talked 
to me about this nomination and his strong support for this nominee.
  I will detail at length later on in the course of this debate the 
very thorough steps taken by the Senate Armed Services Committee. I 
commend my colleagues on the committee. There were unusual facts 
associated with this nomination involving tragic loss of life, a strong 
disciplinary action against those who brought about the direct harm to 
the victim who gave his life. In the course of that, I and other 
members of the committee took it upon ourselves to meet with the family 
members of the deceased victim in this particular case. I wish to 
commend them. They handled themselves in a manner of great distinction, 
given the depth of emotion on their part.
  I also commend the former Vice Chief of the Army, General Keane. He 
took it upon himself time and time again, working with the 
distinguished Under Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, to repeatedly 
go back and reinvestigate certain aspects of this case, I hope to the 
satisfaction of all Members, certainly to this Senator and generally 
members of the committee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to accommodate my colleague. I again 
thank him for his strong tenacity in supporting this nomination 
throughout.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of MG Robert 
Clark to the rank of lieutenant general and commander of the Fifth 
Army. I first met General Clark over 5 years ago when he was commander 
of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, KY. Since that time, I 
have known General Clark to be an honest man and an excellent soldier. 
The military communities in Kentucky and Tennessee surrounding Fort 
Campbell admire General Clark very much. He is well respected 
throughout the Army, and we should be grateful that we have soldiers 
like General Clark serving and protecting our Nation.
  GEN Jack Keane, who commanded General Clark at Fort Campbell, said 
this about him:

       In my 37 years of service, I have never met an officer who 
     is such a tower of character and integrity. His peers, 
     subordinates, and superiors all respect and admire him for 
     the truly special person that he is.

  General Clark loves the Army and he loves his country. Some may even 
say that General Clark was born with the desire to serve his country in 
his blood. Both of his grandfathers served in both World War I and 
World War II. His father served for 31 years and fought in both World 
War II and the Korean conflict. His older brother served in Vietnam. 
One of his younger brothers is an Air Force colonel, and another 
brother is an Army lieutenant colonel on the front lines in Korea.
  The Clark family has made many sacrifices so that future generations 
of Americans can live in peace. General Clark has given 33 years of his 
life in the armed service to this great Nation. He is a decorated 
soldier and has shed his own blood for our country. He led a platoon in 
Vietnam, commanded a brigade that was dropped deep into Iraq during 
Operation Desert Storm.
  As commanding general of the 101st Screaming Eagles, he deployed 
himself, with his troops, all over the world, from Kuwait to El 
Salvador. Most recently, General Clark has been deputy commander of the 
Fifth Army and mobilized Guard and Reserves for homeland defense and 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has worn just about every hat the Army has 
to offer.
  COL Mike Oates, who served under General Clark at Fort Campbell, said 
this about him:

       He spoke straight to the soldiers. He looked them in the 
     eye and he set high standards for wearing our equipment and 
     how we behaved. Discipline is what keeps good units effective 
     and reliable. He enforced discipline and set the example 
     himself.

  I could go on and on about General Clark's distinguished career. But 
I need to address the tragic incident that has held up his nomination, 
which occurred while General Clark was at Fort Campbell. A murder 
occurred at Fort Campbell on July 5, 1999. PVT Barry Winchell was 
killed in a tragic event that none of us should ever forget. Private 
Winchell was murdered by a fellow soldier, who is serving--and 
deservedly so--a life sentence for this horrendous crime.
  I do not wish to address the details of this horrible murder, but I 
do wish to

[[Page S15030]]

extend my thoughts and prayers to Private Winchell's family and 
friends. I have spoken with General Clark several times about this 
tragic incident. I know how sorry he is about the murder of Private 
Winchell, especially since it did happen on his post and under his 
leadership.
  But it is important to note that after the incident--and as the 
general court martial convening authority--General Clark approved the 
maximum punishment for the convicted murderer.

  I want to set the record straight. A small, yet loud minority has 
blamed General Clark for this tragic death. Nothing could be further 
from the truth.
  A man who has given 33 years of his life to protect all Americans--
all Americans--does not deserve to be treated this way. Army 
investigations and many interviews were conducted to dispel the 
misinformation over this incident. And the Army has recommended General 
Clark for nomination to lieutenant general and commander of the Fifth 
Army because he is the most qualified soldier for this job.
  The President nominated General Clark for this post and important 
rank. It is important to note that the Senate Armed Services Committee 
approved his nomination.
  I thank Committee Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for 
helping to move his nomination through the committee.
  Mr. President, our military has an old saying: ``Not for self, but 
for country.''
  Those who know General Clark in the Army and in the communities in 
which he has served all think of him when they hear this statement. 
General Clark is a man who has given his entire life not for self but 
for God and country. I thank him for it.
  We should all be grateful to him for all the sacrifices he has made 
for our freedoms and our protections. I urge my colleagues to support 
the nomination of GEN Robert Clark. He deserves it and he has earned 
it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I express appreciation to my colleague 
from Kentucky again for his taking long hours to personally look into 
this case in a very objective way and in reaching his conclusions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to remind me when I have 
used 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Major General 
Clark to the rank of lieutenant general.
  I agree that General Clark has a strong record as a soldier. He has 
received numerous decorations for his distinguished service and 
courage, and he has served in a number of leadership capacities during 
his more than 30 years in the Army.
  I am concerned, however, about General Clark's performance as 
Commanding General at Fort Campbell, KY, at the time of the brutal 
murder of PVT Barry Winchell on the base in 1999.
  There are few more respected units in the Army than the 101st 
Airborne Division at Fort Campbell. The ``Screaming Eagles,'' as the 
division is called, has a well-deserved reputation of professionalism, 
heroism, and outstanding performance. Yet, in the months leading up to 
the murder of Private Winchell, the command climate at Fort Campbell 
was seriously deficient. According to a report by the Army inspector 
general, Fort Campbell had command-wide low morale, and inadequate 
delivery of health care to soldiers and their families, and the 
leadership condoned widespread, leader-condoned underage drinking in 
the barracks.
  There is compelling evidence that anti-gay harassment was pervasive 
at Fort Campbell during this period. The inspector general reported 
multiple examples of anti-gay graffiti, the use of anti-gray slurs in 
cadences by non-commissioned officers during training runs, and routine 
remarks and bantering that, in the inspector general's words, ``could 
be viewed as harassment.'' Outside groups have documented many 
instances of anti-gay harassment in the months leading up to the 
murder.
  The inspector general also found that prior to the murder, there was 
no sustainment training at Fort Campbell on the proper implementation 
of the Homosexual Conduct Policy, known as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' 
and that, as a result, ``most officers, NCOs, and soldiers at Fort 
Campbell lacked an understanding and working knowledge of the Policy.''
  In his response to my questions, General Clark stated that he agrees 
with these findings, but that he was nevertheless not aware of even a 
single instance of anti-gay harassment before the murder.
  On July 5, 1999, after enduring anti-gay harassment for many months, 
including harassment by members of his chain of command, Private 
Winchell was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat by a fellow 
soldier in his barracks.
  It seems clear that if General Clark had exercised his responsibility 
to deal with the serious anti-gay harassment that was prevalent at Fort 
Campbell during his 17 months of command leading up to the murder of 
Private Winchell, the murder would probably not have occurred.
  Even more serious, however, was General Clark's performance at Fort 
Campbell in the days, weeks, and months following the murder. A brutal 
bias-motivated hate crime is an extraordinary event in any community, 
civilian or military, and it demands an extraordinary response from the 
community's leaders. Such a crime sends the poisonous message that some 
members of the community deserve to be victimized solely because of who 
they are. The potential for such a crime was magnified in this case 
because of the existing climate of anti-gay harassment at Fort 
Campbell, but the available evidence indicates that General Clark's 
response was not adequate with respect to his contacts with Private 
Winchell's family or his command responsibilities at Fort Campbell.
  One factual issue which I have repeatedly asked the Army to resolve, 
without receiving a satisfactory response, is why General Clark did not 
meet with the parents of Private Barry Winchell, Patricia and Wally 
Kutteles, in the days following his murder.
  Following such a brutal murder it is difficult to believe that such a 
meeting did not take place. Any responsible and compassionate 
commanding officer would want to meet with and console the parents of 
the murdered soldier, even if no request for such a meeting had 
formally been made.
  I understand that during the 4 days immediately following the murder, 
General Clark was at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington 
with his wife, who was undergoing tests for a longstanding illness. It 
is understandable that General Clark had declined to meet with the 
parents for this reason, during that period and did not attend the 
memorial service for Private Winchell on July 9. But Clark did not meet 
with the parents in the days after his return to Fort Campbell from 
Walter Reed Hospital nor in the weeks and months that followed the 
Winchell murder. Instead, he states that he never received a request to 
meet with the parents, but he would gladly have met with then if he had 
received a request to do so.
  Patricia Kutteles, Private Winchell's mother, has submitted a sworn 
affidavit stating that she and her husband traveled to Fort Campbell 
immediately after hearing about her son's murder. She was assigned an 
Army liaison officer, Lieutenant Colonel Stratis, as their point of 
contact with Fort Campbell and the Army. Two or three days after the 
murder, she made a request to Lieutenant Colonel Stratis to meet with 
General Clark to talk about her son's death. Lieutenant Colonel Stratis 
told her that General Clark was unable to meet with them.
  There are three possible explanations for this dispute of fact: Ms. 
Kutteles may have submitted a false affidavit, General Clark may have 
given false information to the Committee, or General Clark was, for 
some reason, not informed by his staff about the parent's request.
  Like others on the Armed Services Committee, I have met with the 
parents, and I was struck by their sincerity, their patriotism, and 
their continuing support for our Armed Forces in spite of the tragedy. 
I find it difficult to believe that they are lying or

[[Page S15031]]

mistaken when they say they asked for a meeting with General Clark.
  Nevertheless, that appears to be the position of the Army inspector 
general, who states in his most recent memorandum, dated October 20, 
2003, that the mother's statement in the affidavit is ``unfounded.'' 
The inspector general states that his office ``determined, after 
extensive interviews, none of the key staff members and other relevant 
witnesses recalled receiving or learning of such a request.''
  I have seen several of the affidavits relied upon by the inspector 
general, and I found the statements relied on to be disturbingly non-
responsive. These affidavits fail to resolve the serious factual 
dispute about whether the parents requested a meeting with General 
Clark, and it seems improper for the Army inspector general to suggest 
that no such request was made.
  I believe that it is inappropriate for the Senate to act on this 
nomination until this issue is more satisfactorily resolved.
  General Clark states that he was not aware of any instance of anti-
gay harassment on the base before the murder. At the very least, the 
murder should have made painfully clear that anti-gay bias and anti-gay 
harassment were real and pressing problems at Fort Campbell, problems 
that demanded an immediate and effective response. Yet from the very 
start, and throughout the remainder of his command, General Clark and 
his office took patently ineffective steps to respond to these specific 
problems.
  Two days after the murder, the Fort Campbell public affairs office 
issued a statement describing the incident as a ``physical altercation 
in a post barracks,'' insinuating that Winchell was partly responsible 
for his own death. In fact, Winchell was asleep in the barracks when he 
was attacked by his killer. General Clark stated that he probably 
learned about the false press statement 3 or 4 days later, following 
his return to Fort Campbell from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. 
He said he did not instruct the public affairs office to retract the 
statement or issue a correction because ``comments by my command 
spokesperson regarding the case might well have influenced the 
investigation, or suggested that I had reached premature conclusions 
about the case, and might have influenced or tainted the deliberations 
of any soldier serving on a court martial-panel.''
  It is important for a commanding officer not to make statements that 
might influence an investigation or court-martial. But it is well 
established in military law that a statement may be made to correct a 
false public statement, in order to avoid prejudice to the Government 
or the accused.
  General Clark's explanation is doubly unconvincing in the light of 
the fact that the Fort Campbell public affairs office made a statement, 
2 days after Clark returned to Fort Campbell, that there was ``no 
evidence'' that Private Winchell was killed because he was gay. This 
statement was clearly false, and it also raised a far more serious 
issue about whether the command at Fort Campbell was undermining the 
ability of the Government to prosecute the murder as a bias-motivated 
offense.
  In fact, anti-gay harassment continued in the months following the 
murder.
  The continuing anti-gay harassment at Fort Campbell was also 
accompanied by a sudden exodus of soldiers discharged for violations of 
the Homosexual Conduct Policy. In the 10 months after the murder, 120 
soldiers were discharged from Fort Campbell under this policy, compared 
to only 6 such discharges from Fort Campbell during the same time 
period in the previous year. In all of 1999, there were 271 such 
discharges in the entire Army.
  Instead of dealing directly with the problem of anti-gay harassment, 
General Clark chose to deny that any problem existed. In an op-ed 
article in the New York Times, a year after the murder, he stated that 
``There is not, nor has there ever been during my times here, a climate 
of homophobia on post.''
  In addition, he refused to meet with groups concerned about the 
welfare of gay soldiers, including a local gay community group, and the 
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a national organization.
  Another of General Clark's most serious failure of leadership after 
the murder is the fact that, from all the evidence we have seen, he did 
not even once speak out against the specific problems of anti-gay 
harassment and anti-gay violence, or implement any training for the 
soldiers against it.
  He did take general steps after the Winchell murder to address the 
quality of life for soldiers at Fort Campbell, and he reinforced 
existing programs on the need to treat all soldiers with ``dignity and 
respect.'' These measures were helpful, but hardly sufficient to 
address the specific problem of anti-gay harassment.
  Private Winchell's murder was an anti-gay hate crime, and it called 
for, at the very least, a clear and unequivocal statement by Fort 
Campbell's commanding officer that violence against homosexuals is 
wrong. According to the record, no such statement was ever made.
  General Clark has been asked repeatedly for instances in which he 
spoke publicly about anti-gay harassment. In his response last November 
6, 2002 to written questions, he listed a number of speeches, press 
conferences, and publications, but none of these examples dealt with 
the specific problem of anti-gay harassment.
  For example, General Clark wrote that on January 14, 2000:

       I published an article in the post newspaper, The Fort 
     Campbell Courier, in which I emphasized the quality of 
     soldiers serving at Fort Campbell, and outlines the 
     initiatives we had undertaken to eliminate anti-gay 
     harassment. I also reinforced our longstanding policy of 
     treating all soldiers with dignity and respect.

  In fact the article itself contains no information regarding efforts 
to address anti-gay harassment--not even a statement that such 
harassment is wrong. The article includes only two references to 
homosexuality.
  First, General Clark writes that he has requested a review and 
assessment:

     to determine whether any member of this command violated the 
     Department of Defense Homosexual Conduct Policy in any 
     interaction with PFC Barry Winchell.

  Second, he writes that he has:

     issued a policy on the handling of discharges for homosexual 
     conduct to ensure these matters preserve the privacy and 
     dignity of individual soldiers.

  There is nothing in the article about anti-gay harassment. It deals 
only with the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy.
  The article refers only to General Clark's efforts to improve 
barracks conditions generally and his ``special emphasis'' on the 
dignity of all soldiers. Much of the article is defensive in tone; 
General Clark writes that the soldiers at Fort Campbell are the ``best 
we have ever had,'' that they are ``intolerant of abuse of anybody for 
any reason,'' and that ``leaders'' at Fort Campbell ``set the example 
through word and deed.'' He concludes with this sentence:

       This is the climate that exists at Fort Campbell, in 
     contrast to which you have seen on TV and in the papers 
     during these past few months.

  This tone has characterized much of General Clark's public statements 
during the remainder of his command at Fort Campbell. On June 9, 2000, 
he said at a news conference that he objects:

     in the strongest terms to the way our soldiers, and the 
     climate that embraces them, have been characterized.

  At a Rotary Club meeting in March 2000--another event listed by 
General Clark as an example of his efforts to address anti-gay 
harassment--press reports, say that he:

     used the Rotary speech to lambaste the Kentucky New Era and 
     other area newspapers

for printing an earlier story on his refusal to allow Servicemembers 
Legal Defense Network to place an advertisement in the post newspaper.
  The ad had listed an anonymous hotline number for the Army inspector 
general's office and the telephone number for the organization. General 
Clark justified his decision to reject the ad on the ground that the 
inspector general's office had all the access it needed to soldiers on 
post. Newspaper reports of General Clark's Rotary Club speech contained 
no mention of any statement condemning anti-gay harassment.
  I have repeatedly asked the Department to investigate this issue 
further, to find out whether in fact General Clark made any statements 
specifically addressing anti-gay harassment and anti-gay violence 
following the

[[Page S15032]]

Winchell murder. But the responses of the Department have been 
inadequate.
  In response to similar questions by the parents, the inspector 
general stated:

       During the 6 months following the murder, Major General 
     Clark was personally involved in talking to Commanders at all 
     levels about the anti-gay harassment.

  There have been other cases where commanding officers have had to 
respond to tragedies, and they have done so in a variety of ways that 
demonstrate their leadership.
  Many have drawn comparisons between General Clark's response in this 
case and General John Keane's response to the murder of African 
American civilians at Fort Bragg by racist soldiers. After these 
murders, General Keane held a 1-year anniversary remembrance and 
publicly offered his condolences. He met with the NAACP and the Anti-
Defamation League to discuss the murders and consider ways to improve 
the racial climate.
  General Keane offered very strong public statements against racism, 
and he implemented sensitivity training on the base. General Clark did 
none of this.
  In all the services, discrimination against gays is codified in the 
ban on their service in military. In reporting anti-gay discrimination, 
soldiers face potential investigation, further harassment, and even 
discharge. This makes this population even more vulnerable to acts of 
harassment and violence, which makes it even more essential for leaders 
to act quickly and effectively in response to attacks on soldiers 
perceived to be gay.
  In the recent controversy at the Air Force Academy, the senior 
leadership has been held accountable, from the Commandant of the 
Academy, to the Secretary of the Air Force. The Commandant of the Air 
Force Academy has been held responsible for the shortcomings of his 
subordinate commanders.
  General Clark never held a single officer responsible for the command 
climate that led to the murder of Private Winchell. General Clark did 
not take responsibility for addressing the problem of anti-gay 
harassment at Fort Campbell after the murder. He should bear the 
ultimate responsibility for the climate that led to this tragedy and 
for not remedying that climate afterwards.
  These are important questions that go to the heart of this officer's 
suitability for promotion to lieutenant general. The Senate deserves 
better information acting on such a controversial nomination.
  I will just review for a few moments the difference between Fort 
Bragg and Fort Campbell. This is the difference, the comparison between 
General Keane's response to the murder of two African-American 
civilians and General Clark's response to the murder of PVT Barry 
Winchell. Fort Bragg:

       In December 1995, three White Fort Bragg soldiers murdered 
     two Black North Carolina civilians. Then Fort Bragg 
     commanding general, LTG John Keane, currently General Keane, 
     did the following actions after the murder:
       At Fort Bragg, an on-base memorial service for 
     ``remembrance and reconciliation'' was held 1 year after the 
     murders. Lieutenant General Keane publicly communicated 
     strong condolences.

  On General Clark's actions after the murder, he declined to meet with 
the Winchell family, did not attend the Winchells' on-base memorial 
service held shortly following the murder, and did not hold any 
subsequent memorial events.
  LTG John Keane invited the NAACP and the ADL to discuss the murders 
and work with the base to improve the racial climate. The local NAACP 
leader, James Florence, on the NAACP's relationship with Fort Bragg, 
said:

       Since [the murders] we have had a liaison with Fort Bragg. 
     We can talk with them almost any time we need.

  General Clark declined to meet with the gay groups, declined to meet 
with the legal defense funds, and declined to meet with gay veterans 
organizations.
  There is a dramatic difference between two commanding officers and 
how they dealt with the hate crimes. General Keane's response to the 
soldiers after the murders? LTG John Keane and the Army launched an 
aggressive program to ``weed skinheads and extremists out of the 
military.'' General Keane said:

       We did not see this cancer coming. We missed the signs, 
     symbols, and manifestations of extremism.

  General Keane implemented sensitivity training at Fort Bragg 
regarding race relations. He said:

       We've educated our people, in terms of what to look for and 
     how to deal with it, and when we find soldiers whose 
     attitudes and behavior are disruptive to good order and 
     discipline of our unit, we are going to act.

  General Clark publicly stated there was not a climate of homophobia 
on Fort Campbell, did not make any public statements or issue any 
written directives and never publicly communicated an appreciation of 
the harm caused by the antigay murder.
  There are dramatic differences between how an officer dealt with 
this, who continues to serve with great distinction in our service, and 
the nominee.
  Finally, here is the comparison between General Clark's response to 
the murder of PVT Barry Winchell and the response of the Air Force 
Academy leaders on sexual assaults. At the Air Force Academy during the 
period of 1993 through 2003, 60 cases of sexual assault were reported. 
Earlier this year, LTG John Dallager, the academy commandant from 2000 
to 2003, lost his third star and retired as a major general because the 
Secretary of the Air Force determined he ``did not exercise the degree 
of leadership in this situation that we expect of our commanders.''
  In September 2003, an independent panel commissioned to review the 
climate situation issued a report supporting the demotion of General 
Dallager and recommending an additional review to assess the actions 
taken by other leaders and holding individuals accountable.

  On General Clark, in July 1999, two Fort Campbell soldiers murdered 
Barry Winchell because they believed him to be gay. This murder 
occurred on the base, in the barracks. This murder and additional 
problems with antigay harassment occurred during the tenure of 
Commander Clark and there has been no response.
  My final point on the ultimate responsibility:

       General Dallager is the Academy leader--[this was the 
     finding]--bearing ultimate responsibility for the failure to 
     adequately respond to sexual assault issues.
       The Panel concurs with the decision . . . to retire General 
     Dallager. . . .

  Retire him.
  On the ultimate responsibility, Army leadership doctrine states that 
commanders:

     . . . have to answer for how their subordinates live and what 
     they do after work.

  That is in the field manual.
  In a July 19, 2000 article in the New York Times, General Clark 
stated:

       There is no, nor has there ever been during my times here, 
     a climate of homophobia on post.

  General Shinseki, on July 21, 2000, stated in a DoD News Briefing:

       We take full responsibility for what happened to Private 
     Winchell. . . .

  There is General Shinseki taking responsibility. There is a general.

       We take full responsibility for what happened to Private 
     Winchell.

  General Clark has failed to accept similar responsibility in this 
case and doesn't deserve the promotion.
  On another matter, I believe there is some remaining time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was going to reply to some of the points 
my colleague from Massachusetts made. As you well know, the General----
  Mr. KENNEDY. May I reserve the remainder of my time? Is this on the 
Senator's time?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Since I had the floor, I want this additional comment I 
would like to make on another subject, but I also want to respond to 
the questions of the Senator, so I will be glad to do whatever you 
would like.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary question: We are on this 
nomination with 2 hours of debate and 1 hour each divided equally. I 
manage this side and Senator Kennedy manages that side. If the Senator 
wishes to go on to another matter, I am not sure how the Senator wishes 
to handle this.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is not difficult, I think, since I 
have 40 minutes. I will use my remaining time and ask that my comments 
be inserted into another part of the Record so it doesn't interfere, 
and then I will be glad to answer any questions of the Senator.

[[Page S15033]]

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts 
will accommodate the Senator from Virginia. I would like to make some 
comments with respect to his important remarks while they are fresh in 
the minds of the listeners. I think it is appropriate that I take a 
little time. Then, as far as I am concerned, we will both yield back 
our time and the Senator from Massachusetts can take some time on 
another matter, if he wishes. Is that helpful?
  Mr. KENNEDY. How long did the Senator plan to speak?
  Mr. WARNER. I will summarize my comments in about 5 or 6 minutes, at 
the conclusion of which we could both yield our time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator wants to address the 
Senate first, Senator Dayton was yielded 15 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. That is under the order. I didn't realize he just walked 
in the Chamber. I am trying to do the best I can to accommodate 
everybody and manage the time efficiently. But I do desire at this 
point in time an opportunity to reply to my colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will yield the floor for that purpose 
and ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senate had a comparison between how 
General Keane and General Clark handled problems within their 
respective commands. General Clark was the convening authority, and the 
tragedy that occurred to which the Senator referred, and which is the 
subject of some comments here today, came up through the military 
command, was handled by the military courts and the military 
authorities, and adjudicated. As the convening authority, I think he 
took some prudent steps to make certain that in no way could he be 
accused of command influence. The tragedy in General Keane's command 
was tried in the civilian courts, and as such he was not the convening 
authority. He then had the opportunity to do some things which I 
believe General Clark did not.
  Out of this tragedy, there were lessons learned in the Army. I think 
some important new policy matters were put into the regulations. 
Otherwise, not all was lost in this tragic situation.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Army 
Inspector General's Report on Fort Campbell at the conclusion of my 
remarks. That is the first section of it that addresses a number of 
points that are raised by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe from reading this report--not in 
the words of the Senator from Massachusetts that no one was trying to 
stop these tragic situations--that it was generally a positive command 
climate. There were some isolated instances of harassment, sexual in 
nature. I concede that is in the Record. But the total quantity of 
these incidents, in my judgment, was not indicative of a breakdown in 
the command responsibilities under General Clark.
  General Clark, as I said, came to the committee on two occasions and 
subjected himself quite willingly--indeed, under oath; I put him under 
oath at the second hearing--and he responded to the cross-examination, 
much of which the distinguished colleague from Massachusetts has raised 
today.
  In conclusion, he has an extremely impressive record of military 
service stretching back to 1970. Much of that has been covered by my 
colleague from Kentucky.
  Mind you, Fort Campbell is an installation that can at times host a 
daily population of 24,000 military personnel and over 200 company-
sized units.
  In July of 1999, this brutal murder was committed at Fort Campbell by 
an intoxicated 18-year-old soldier who used frightful force against PFC 
Barry Winchell. This resulted in his death, allegedly while he was 
sleeping. No one underestimates the seriousness of this crime.
  Senator Levin and I met in May of this year with the parents of 
Private First Class Winchell. Like General Clark, we extended our 
sympathy and sorrow for their loss. The committee listened very closely 
to the assertions they made about a lack of appropriate treatment by 
General Clark and shortfalls in discipline and a secure environment at 
Fort Campbell during the time their son was stationed there.
  At the conclusion of the meeting, Senator Levin and I asked Private 
First Class Winchell's parents to put the questions and concerns they 
had raised with us at that meeting in a letter, and we would obtain 
answers from the Department of Defense--specifically, the Department of 
the Army--and share those answers with them. That we did. The parents 
sent us a letter and Senator Levin and I forwarded these questions to 
the Department. In September, the Department responded to questions and 
expressed continued support for Major General Clark's nomination.
  I ask unanimous consent that all of these matters be printed in the 
Record at the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, not only the steps taken by the Armed 
Services Committee, together with my distinguished colleague Senator 
Levin, but indeed by the Department of the Army into other areas 
overall reflect, I think, that our committee carefully looked into this 
matter and that the Department of the Army was responsive to the 
questions raised by my colleagues.
  Mr. President, MG Clark is highly qualified for promotion to the rank 
of lieutenant general assignment as Commander of the Fifth United 
States Army. He was first nominated for this position in the fall of 
2002. He has appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 
executive session on two separate occasions, and, on both occasions 
conducted himself with deferrence and respect for the members of the 
committee, and with appreciation for the Constitutionally-based advise 
and consent power--and responsibility--of the Senate. Not surprisingly, 
General Clark has the full support of the Chief of Staff of the Army, 
General Schoomaker, and the civilian leadership of the Army for this 
promotion.
  General Clark has an extremely impressive record of military service 
stretching back to his commissioning in 1970. General Clark's military 
record includes combat service in Viet Nam for which he was awarded the 
Bronze Star with Combat ``V.'' He has served as a Battalion Commander 
and a Brigade Commander with the renowned ``Screaming Eagles'' of the 
101st Airborne Division. In this capacity, he participated in 
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Major General Clark later 
served as Chief of Staff for the 101st Airborne Division, and from 1998 
through 2000 as Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division and 
Fort Campbell, KY.
  Fort Campbell is an installation that can, at times, host a daily 
population of over 24,000 military personnel and over 200 company sized 
units. In July 1999, a brutal murder was committed at Fort Campbell by 
a drunken, 18-year-old soldier who bludgeoned Private First Class Barry 
Winchell to death in his sleep. This tragic and senseless crime was not 
foreseeable--not foreseeable by PFC Winchell's company commander and 
certainly not foreseeable by Major General Clark. General Clark capably 
and competently fulfilled his responsibility as General court-Martial 
convening authority in this murder trial and took steps necessary to 
ensure that the perpetrator of this crime and an accomplice were 
brought to justice. This was accomplished and the soldier who murdered 
PFC Winchell is serving a life sentence.

  Senator Levin and I met in May of this year with the parents of PFC 
Winchell. We, like General Clark, extended our sympathy and sorrow for 
their loss. As leaders of the committee, we listened very closely to 
the assertions they made about a lack of appropriate treatment by 
General Clark, and shortfalls in discipline and a secure environment at 
Fort Campbell during the time their son was stationed there.
  At the conclusion of our meeting, Senator Levin and I asked PFC 
Winchell's parents to put the questions and concerns that they had 
raised with us in a letter, and we would obtain answers from the 
department and share those answer with them. The parents did so, and we 
sent their questions to the department in June.

[[Page S15034]]

  In late September, the department responded to the questions, and 
expressed continued support for Major General Clark's nomination. The 
Army undertook to conduct inquiries through the Army Inspector General 
in response to the questions raised by the parents, and, I believe, did 
respond fully to the issues that were raised.
  In late September, Senator Levin and I forwarded the Department's 
response to PFC Winchell's parents inviting them to respond. They did 
so on October 8th. On October 10, Senator Levin and I forwarded their 
letter to the department together with additional questions from 
Senator Kennedy requesting comment. We received a response from 
secretary Abell and Acting Secretary Brownlee on October 21st and, 
shortly thereafter, we conducted our second executive session.
  The committee compiled a very thorough record about all the issues 
raised by Senator Kennedy and others. I will not go into specific 
details, but it is important to note that the Army Inspector General 
conducted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the July 
1999 death of PFC Winchell after the court-martial was completed, and 
the IG found no basis to support accusations of dereliction of duty and 
failure of leadership by General Clark. To the contrary, the 
investigation found a positive command climate at Fort Campbell and 
refuted the assertions that Major General Clark should have done more 
or could have prevented this tragedy.
  I am very concerned about ensuring accountability of military 
officers, and I have insisted at looking very closely at the actions of 
military leaders who are entrusted with command. I am satisfied that 
General Clark did not fail in his command responsibility and is fully 
deserving of promotion. I urge my colleagues to support this 
nomination.

                               Exhibit I


                           executive summary

     Background
       On 5 July 1999, Private First Class (PFC) Barry Winchell, D 
     Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, Fort 
     Campbell, Kentucky, was murdered by a fellow soldier. 
     Following this incident, and amid claims that PFC Winchell 
     was murdered because he was or was perceived to be a 
     homosexual, allegations arose concerning the command climate 
     at Fort Campbell particularly as it related to the command's 
     enforcement of the Department of Defense (DOD) Homosexual 
     Conduct Policy [hereinafter the Policy]. The Army pledged 
     early on to assess the command climate and investigate the 
     alleged violations of the Policy; however, to avoid 
     interfering in the individual judicial proceedings underway, 
     the Army could not begin that effort until the conclusion of 
     the two courts-martial arising out of PFC Winchell's death.
       On 10 January 2000, the Secretary of the Army (SA) directed 
     that the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) 
     conduct an investigation into the facts and circumstances 
     surrounding the death of PFC Winchell as it related to the 
     Policy (enclosed) [hereinafter referred to as directive]. In 
     addition, the DAIG was tasked to conduct an assessment of the 
     command climate then existing in PFC Winchell's unit prior to 
     his death and an overall assessment of the command climate 
     existing at Fort Campbell prior to PFC Winchell's death, 
     specifically as it related to the Policy. Finally, the DAIG 
     was directed to provide an overall assessment of the 
     Department of the Army's (DA) implementation of the Policy. 
     The Fort Campbell assessment provided the initial data for 
     the Army assessment of the Policy. The Army IG will continue 
     to assess these issues as part of their continuing inspection 
     program.
     Task Force Composition, Training, and Methodology
       A Task Force of 27 individuals was established to conduct 
     the investigation and assessment in accordance with the 
     directive. The Task Force was composed of inspectors general 
     (IGs), one legal advisor, and subject matter experts. During 
     early February, the Task Force received training from the 
     subject matter experts in the areas of the Policy itself, 
     Equal Opportunity (EO), interview techniques, and group 
     dynamics. Further, the Task Force conducted mock individual 
     interviews and group sensing sessions in order to validate 
     the assessment strategy. Finally, at the request of the 
     Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), key leaders of 
     the Task Force met with representatives of the SLDN to 
     identify specific concerns of the organization. The SLDN is a 
     national legal aid organization that assists soldiers 
     affected by the Policy.
       The scope of the assessment included the following: 
     Interviews with the commanding general, 101st Airborne 
     Division (Air Assault), both assistant division commanders 
     who were occupying those positions in July 1999, and 
     interviews with 47 brigade and battalion-level commanders 
     from both divisional and nondivisional tenant units. 
     In addition, the Task Force conducted 68 sensing sessions 
     composed of soldiers randomly-selected by utilizing the 
     last two digits of the social security number. In these 
     sessions, 568 soldiers were interviewed and 1,385 command 
     climate surveys were administered throughout Fort 
     Campbell. With respect to the sensing sessions, it should 
     be noted that all of these soldiers were assigned to Fort 
     Campbell from the period of April 1999 through February 
     2000. In addition, participants who completed a command 
     climate survey were informed that the responses would be 
     anonymous.
       In addition to interviews conducted on Fort Campbell, the 
     investigation team conducted on-site interviews at Fort 
     Benning and Fort Leonard Wood, as well as telephonic 
     interviews with soldiers assigned to Korea, Fort Drum, Fort 
     Knox, Fort Jackson and the United States Military Academy. 
     Civilian members of the Fort Campbell community as well as 
     former members of the Army were also interviewed by the 
     investigation team.
       Finally, Task Force members gathered relevant data through 
     on-site inspections and additional periodic spot checks of 
     unit recreation centers, public use areas, and barracks 
     living areas. Finally, the Task Force secured information by 
     directly observing on-post soldier events to include physical 
     fitness training sessions.
     History and Background of the Policy
       On 29 January 1993, the President directed the Secretary of 
     Defense (SecDef) to review DOD policy on homosexuals in the 
     military. On 19 July 1993, the SecDef directed the following: 
     applicants for military service as well as current 
     servicemembers would not be asked nor required to reveal 
     their sexual orientation; sexual orientation would not be a 
     bar to entry into the service or continued service unless 
     manifested by homosexual conduct; and commanders and 
     investigating agencies would not initiate investigation 
     solely to determine a member's sexual orientation. On 30 
     November 1993, Congress enacted 10 United States Code (USC), 
     Section 654, policy concerning homosexuality in the armed 
     forces.


                           Assessment Results

     Finding 1
       Objective: Examine alleged violations of the DOD Homosexual 
     Conduct Policy during the period preceding PFC Winchell's 
     death.
       Findings: 1. A preponderance of evidence indicated that two 
     noncommissioned officers (NCOs) in PFC Winchell's chain of 
     command and a fellow private (PVT) inquired into PFC 
     Winchell's sexual orientation. In addition, at least one NCO 
     referred to PFC Winchell as a ``faggot.''
       2. In spite of this, however, the evidence gathered 
     demonstrated that the chain of command was proactive in 
     terminating the sporadic incidents of derogatory or offensive 
     cadences during unit marches and physical training (PT) 
     formations.
       Summary: Evidence obtained from Fort Campbell indicated 
     that in late May 1999 PFC Winchell asked an NCO from his 
     unit, D Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 
     ``What would happen if a guy in the military was gay?'' In 
     responding to that question, the NCO asked PFC Winchell if he 
     was a homosexual. Testimony revealed that the NCO asked the 
     question in an effort to offer assistance to PFC Winchell in 
     getting professional guidance or assistance in addressing the 
     issue.
       Evidence gathered indicated that an NCO in PFC Winchell's 
     unit referred to PFC Winchell as well as other members of the 
     unit as ``faggots'' in describing those who failed to perform 
     to his standards. On one occasion, the NCO referred to PFC 
     Winchell as a ``faggot'' after PFC Winchell reported to work 
     in what appeared to be an intoxicated state.
       The preponderance of evidence demonstrated that PFC 
     Winchell's chain of command did not condone demeaning or 
     derogatory cadences made during the conduct of unit PT. In 
     those instances where inappropriate remarks were made, 
     company leaders made on-the-spot corrections.
     Finding 2
       Objective: Determine whether the local IG's office 
     responded appropriately to any complaints of violations of 
     the DOD Policy it may have received prior to PFC Winchell's 
     death.
       Finding: The Fort Campbell IG office properly responded to 
     the only known complaint of a violation of the Policy prior 
     to 5 July 1999 when they followed standard Army IG guidance 
     by recommending PFC Winchell provide his commanders the 
     opportunity to resolve his complaint prior to direct IG 
     intervention with the command.
       Summary: Immediately after the NCO called PFC Winchell a 
     ``faggot,'' another NCO escorted PFC Winchell to the IG 
     office to file a complaint. Upon being advised that he should 
     provide his commander the first opportunity to address the 
     issue, PFC Winchell was then escorted to his company 
     commander. Evidence obtained indicated that the company 
     commander counseled the NCO regarding his inappropriate 
     remarks.
     Finding 3
       Objectives: 1. Conduct an overall assessment of the command 
     climate existing at Fort Campbell prior to 5 July 1999, 
     specifically as it relates to the application and enforcement 
     of the DOD Policy.
       2. Assess the degree to which PFC Winchell's chain of 
     command understood the application and enforcement of the DOD 
     Policy.

[[Page S15035]]

       3. Conduct sensing sessions with randomly-selected members 
     at Fort Campbell to determine the degree to which members 
     felt they understood the Policy and the degree to which the 
     Policy was being enforced.
       4. Assess the command climate of D Company, 2nd Battalion, 
     502nd Infantry Regiment before 5 July 1999.
       Findings: 1. Through sensing sessions, interviews, and 
     surveys across Fort Campbell, it was determined that the 
     command climate at Fort Campbell before 5 July 1999 was a 
     positive environment with exceptions related to medical 
     support, on- and off-post housing, after-duty-hours 
     recreation, and shortages of personnel in authorized grades. 
     Most soldiers indicated satisfaction with their mission, 
     training, and organizational leadership.
       2. With respect to the Policy, it was clear that the chain 
     of command, from commanding general (CG) through company 
     leaders, responded appropriately to matters with respect to 
     enforcement of the Policy.
       3. The specific assessment of D Company, 2nd Battalion, 
     502nd Infantry Regiment's command climate prior to 5 July 
     1999 was determined to be poor due primarily to leadership 
     failure of a senior NCO, perceptions pertaining to underage 
     drinking, and other factors beyond the direct control of the 
     company, such as shortages of personnel in authorized grades 
     and quality of life (QOL) issues.
       Summary: In evaluating the overall command climate at Fort 
     Campbell, personnel were asked to compare the command climate 
     as it existed in February 2000 with the command climate the 
     year prior. Overall, personnel indicated that the command 
     climate was favorable. The majority of personnel questioned 
     believed that the leadership at Fort Campbell was effective 
     and concerned and treated personnel favorably. In addition, 
     the majority of personnel questioned felt that the chain of 
     command responded appropriately to issues presented to them. 
     Finally, personnel believed that the leadership led by 
     example.
       QOL issues contributed to low morale at Fort Campbell. 
     Specifically, issues relating to the conditions in the 
     barracks, problems associated with medical care at Fort 
     Campbell, and treatment received by soldiers from the 
     civilian employees and individuals in the surrounding 
     civilian communities were the major areas of concern to those 
     questioned.
       In general, the application and enforcement of the Policy 
     did not appear to be a problem at Fort Campbell. Most leaders 
     took appropriate action in instances where application of the 
     Policy was warranted and appeared to be operating well within 
     the confines of the Policy. Soldiers acknowledged, however, 
     that the joking and bantering that had occurred prior to July 
     1999 on a regular basis could be viewed as harassment. 
     Following training on the Policy and Consideration of Others 
     (COO), soldiers are now more apt to reconsider uttering 
     phrases that would likely be considered harassment.
       However, the command climate of D Company, 2nd Battalion, 
     502nd Infantry Regiment, in the period prior to PFC 
     Winchell's murder was poor. In addition to the QOL issues 
     identified above, soldiers in PFC Winchell's unit believed 
     that personnel shortages and underage drinking in the 
     barracks to the poor command climate. The most significant 
     factor contributing to the poor command climate, however, was 
     the presence of an abusive NCO in a leadership position in 
     the unit.
     Finding 4
       Objective: Review and resolve allegations by Private Second 
     Class (PV2) Javier Torres and others of specific violations 
     of the Policy.
       Summary of Findings: The preponderance of evidence did not 
     support PV2 Torres' allegation that he was personally 
     harassed at Fort Campbell; however, evidence does support his 
     allegation of routine personal harassment at Fort Benning and 
     occasional personal harassment at Fort Knox. The 
     preponderance of evidence supported PV2 Torres' allegations 
     that during initial entry training (IET) at Fort Benning, one 
     drill sergeant improperly addressed or referred to him as a 
     homosexual, and another PVT provoked a fight with him by 
     routinely taunting him and referring to him as a homosexual. 
     The evidence also supported PV2 Torres' allegation that at 
     Fort Campbell a senior NCO improperly used terms derogatory 
     to homosexuals while trying to motivate male soldiers to 
     perform to standard and two NCOs improperly used terms 
     derogatory to homosexuals while singing cadences during a 
     physical training run. It did not support his allegations 
     that an NCO in his unit at Fort Campbell improperly used 
     anti-homosexual language while conducting training on the 
     Homosexual Conduct Policy, that a soldier at Fort Knox 
     improperly inquired into his sexual orientation, and that an 
     NCO in his unit at Fort Campbell improperly inquired into his 
     sexual orientation.
       The preponderance of evidence supported allegations that an 
     NCO at Fort Campbell read a joke to soldiers that was 
     demeaning to homosexuals; anti-homosexual graffiti was 
     present on a wall of a latrine in a unit area, a latrine 
     in a public recreation area, and a latrine in a work area 
     at Fort Campbell; and a nongovernmental civilian, not a 
     soldier, sent an e-mail containing anti-homosexual 
     language to a former soldier at Fort Campbell. The 
     preponderance of evidence did not support allegations that 
     anti-homosexual comments made by soldiers at Fort Campbell 
     were the ``norm,'' soldiers made threatening and 
     inappropriate comments during training on the Policy, an 
     e-mail with a sound wave file attached that contained 
     language demeaning to homosexuals was circulated at Fort 
     Campbell, and an NCO's chain of command improperly 
     inquired into his sexual orientation.
     Finding 5
       Objectives: 1. Assess the degree to which PFC Winchell's 
     chain of command understood the application and enforcement 
     of the Policy.
       2. Conduct an overall assessment of the command climate 
     that existed then at Fort Campbell, specifically as it 
     relates to the application, enforcement, and training 
     conducted on the Homosexual Conduct Policy.
       3. Conduct sensing sessions with randomly-selected military 
     members at Fort Campbell to determine the degree to which 
     members felt they understood the Policy and the degree to 
     which they believed the Policy was being enforced.
       Finding: There was no sustainment training conducted at 
     Fort Campbell on the Policy before 5 July 1999 because there 
     was no clearly articulated requirement on how often personnel 
     were to be trained and who was to receive the training. The 
     published guidance indicated: ``All officers and enlisted 
     personnel of the Active Army and Reserve Components will 
     receive briefings upon entry and periodically thereafter.'' 
     Institutional training of personnel on the implementation and 
     enforcement of the Policy was ineffective. Most officers, 
     NCOs, and soldiers at Fort Campbell lacked an understanding 
     and working knowledge of the Policy prior to 5 July 1999.
       Summary: Nearly all soldiers, NCOs, and officers at Fort 
     Campbell had received training on the Policy at some point in 
     their military career. The training that was conducted, 
     however, did not contribute meaningfully to an understanding 
     or working knowledge of the Policy.
       As a result, most personnel did not demonstrate a clear 
     understanding of their responsibilities under the Policy and 
     the standards contained within the Policy.
     Finding 6
       Objective: Assess whether current training materials 
     adequately convey the substance of the Policy.
       Findings: 1. Currently, commanders, leaders, and soldiers 
     at Fort Campbell do not have a clear understanding of the 
     Policy because training and informational materials do not 
     adequately convey the substance of the Policy.
       2. Training and informational guidance contain key words 
     (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) that are not defined in doctrine.
       Summary: Based on interviews with commanders, leaders, and 
     soldiers, the results of the command climate survey, and a 
     review of records and files at Fort Campbell, it was 
     determined that the training provided on the Policy is not 
     clearly written, not tailored to specific audiences based on 
     rank and duty positions, fails to adequately convey the 
     substance of the Policy, and is presented in a format which 
     does not foster open and meaningful discussion on the issues.
       Informational materials distributed to Army personnel, to 
     include a Hot Topics pullout in Soldiers Magazine and a 
     trifold pamphlet, suffered from the same defects according to 
     personnel. The use of the terms ``Don't Ask'' and ``Don't 
     Tell'' in the informational materials without providing 
     definitions to explain these phrases created a large amount 
     of anxiety and confusion.
     Finding 7
       Objective: Provide an overall assessment of the DA's 
     implementation of the DOD Policy by assessing:
       1. Whether the Policy is being fairly applied within units.
       2. Whether there are currently any other perceived 
     deficiencies in the Policy which preclude effective training, 
     application, and enforcement of the Policy.
       Findings: 1. The Policy is being fairly applied at Fort 
     Campbell; however, the Policy with respect to discharges and 
     substantial investigations is not being implemented as 
     intended because commanders perceive an unacceptable risk to 
     the unit and soldier by retaining soldiers who make 
     admissions of homosexuality.
       2. Commanders have difficulty in balancing their 
     responsibility to maintain morale, unit cohesion, good order, 
     and discipline while enforcing the Policy. They perceive that 
     the current implementing instructions restrain their latitude 
     to conduct inquiries and preclude them from exercising 
     reasonable discretion in initiating inquiries.
       3. AR 600-20 and subsequent Army guidance and messages 
     regarding the reporting of harassment based on homosexual 
     orientation do not adequately advise soldiers where or how to 
     report harassment, and do not adequately advise commanders 
     and agencies how to process these complaints.
       Summary: The Task Force determined that the Policy was 
     being fairly applied by commanders at Fort Campbell. The 
     soldiers discharged under Chapter 15 were overall satisfied 
     with their treatment during the process. The Fort Campbell 
     commanders expressed concern in complying with the Policy. 
     They believe it places them in a professional dilemma by 
     requiring them to choose between retention of a soldier who 
     declares a propensity for homosexual conduct and discharge 
     when the truthfulness of his statement of homosexuality is 
     suspect. They are

[[Page S15036]]

     reluctant to conduct inquiries of the truthfulness of an 
     admission because of the perceived risk to both the unit and 
     the individual soldier.
       Commanders stated to the Task Force that they had 
     difficulty in balancing the enforcement of the Policy and the 
     requirement to maintain morale, unit cohesion, good order, 
     and discipline. Commanders expressed concerns that the Policy 
     precludes them from conducting an inquiry when presented with 
     credible information of behavior that demonstrates a soldier 
     may have a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct. They 
     believe the Policy precludes them from exercising reasonable 
     discretion in determining the necessity to conduct an 
     inquiry.
       Information gathered by the Task Force determined that 
     guidance on reporting harassment based on sexual orientation 
     by soldiers and investigation into such harassment by leaders 
     is unclear and confusing. Soldiers and leaders expressed 
     frustration with knowing how and to whom to report harassment 
     and how to handle incidents of this type of harassment. They 
     expressed the belief that all harassment should be dealt with 
     uniformly.
       In summary commanders and leaders at all levels have an 
     inherent responsibility for establishing a command climate 
     that promotes good order and discipline essential to 
     accomplishing the Army's mission. This responsibility 
     includes promoting unit cohesion by identifying and 
     eliminating harassment before it occurs or results in reports 
     of violations of Army Standards.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit II


                                 Office of the Under Secretary

                                                    of Defense

                                   Washington, DC, March 11, 2003.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in reference to the 
     nomination of Major General Robert T. Clark, United States 
     Army, for appointment to the grade of lieutenant general and 
     for assignment as Commanding General, Fifth United States 
     Army that the President recently sent to the Senate. The 
     President previously forwarded Major General Clark's 
     nomination to the Senate on September 10, 2002; however, his 
     nomination was not acted upon by the Senate prior to the 
     Senate's sine die adjournment on November 22, 2002.
       The Secretary of Defense considered reported information 
     concerning Major General Clark. Major General Clark was in 
     command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Fort 
     Campbell at the time Private First Class Barry Winchell, a 
     member of the command who was perceived to be homosexual, was 
     murdered in his barracks by another member of the command. 
     The Department of the Army Inspector General conducted an 
     investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding 
     the death of Private First Class Winchell and the Inspector 
     General conducted a command climate assessment at Fort 
     Campbell. Neither the investigation nor the command climate 
     assessment determined that Major General Clark was culpable. 
     We previously provided you with a copy of the Department of 
     the Army Inspector General's Report and this incident was 
     addressed in detail at an Executive Session of the Senate 
     Armed Services Committee in the 107th Congress.
       I have attached a copy of the following information for 
     your consideration: chronology of the actions and initiatives 
     taken by the Department of Defense and the Department of the 
     Army immediately following the death of Private First Class 
     Winchell; a detailed chronology of published policies and 
     actions of the dignity and respect for all soldiers directed 
     by Major General Clark while serving as the Commanding 
     General of the 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell; and 
     a list of initiatives implemented by Major General Clark with 
     respect to Homosexual Conduct Policy subsequent to the death 
     of Private first Class Winchell.
       After careful review of all information, the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of the Army continued to support 
     Major General Clark for appointment to the grade of 
     lieutenant general and for assignment as Commanding General, 
     Fifth United States Army. When considered in light of Major 
     General Clark's past performance and future potential, we 
     believe proceeding with the nomination is clearly in the best 
     interest of the Department of the Army and the Department of 
     Defense.
       The Department appreciates your assistance in facilitating 
     the confirmation of pending nominations.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Charles S. Abell,
                                                 Principal Deputy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Warner, for all of his courtesies during the 
consideration of this nominee. I mentioned during my comments that we 
wanted to get additional answers. He has been extremely accommodating 
to those of us who raised the questions, as he always is as the 
chairman of the committee. I thank him for his fairness and ensuring 
that all of those who had concerns were able to conduct our concerns in 
accordance with the rules. I thank him very much for all of his 
courtesies.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Senator Bunning I know has a great interest in this. I 
thank him also.
  I will address the Senate briefly on another matter which is of 
importance and consequence to the Senate. Then I will yield the time 
because I know my colleague wants to address this issue. Then we will 
be prepared to move to a vote.
  How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 minutes of the 40 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. If you would let me know when 15 
minutes have been used, I would appreciate it.


                     Conference Report on Medicare

  Mr. President, in a very few days we are going to be confronted with 
the conference report on Medicare. There is no more important issue 
facing the Congress and no more important issue to senior citizens and 
their families. Every senior citizen, every child of senior citizens, 
and every American should understand that this legislation must be 
defeated or drastically modified.
  This conference report represents a right-wing agenda to privatize 
Medicare and to force senior citizens into HMOs and private insurance 
plans. The day it is implemented, it will make millions of seniors 
worse off than they are today. It is a cynical attempt to use the 
elderly and the disabled's need for affordable prescription drugs as a 
Trojan horse to destroy the program on which they have relied for 40 
years.
  It is important to understand how we got to this point.
  First of all, we all understand that Medicare is one of the most 
beloved programs this Nation has ever enacted. It is depended upon by 
seniors all over this country. It is a program which is relied on and 
depended upon, and it works. If there is a failure in the Medicare 
Program, it was not to have included a prescription drug program in the 
legislation we passed.
  That really is not what this current conference report is all about. 
This conference report is going to threaten Medicare in a very 
significant and important way--in a way that those of us who believe in 
Medicare should not permit.
  We started in the Senate with a bipartisan bill to expand the 
prescription drug coverage. We also provided additional choices to 
private insurance coverage for senior citizens as the President 
requested. The bill was not a solution for the problems senior citizens 
face. It only provided about $400 billion between now and 2012 toward 
the prescription costs that will total $1.8 trillion. But it was a 
start, a downpayment. It was a fair and balanced compromise that 
protected Medicare and protected senior citizens. That is why it passed 
by 76 votes. Only 11 Democrats voted no; only 10 Republicans voted no.

  The House took a different course. They passed a bill that was 
designed to radically alter Medicare, not for the benefit of the 
elderly. That is why it passed by a slim partisan majority of one vote. 
Now the conference has been hijacked by those who want to radically 
alter Medicare, privatize, to voucherize it, to force seniors into HMOs 
and into private insurance plans.
  The bill the Senate will consider shortly is not a bill to provide a 
prescription drug benefit. It is a bill to carry out the right wing 
agenda and asks the elderly to swallow unprecedented changes in 
Medicare in return for a limited and inadequate small prescription drug 
benefit.
  This conference report is so ill-conceived, not only does it put the 
whole Medicare Program at risk, it makes 9 million seniors, almost a 
quarter of the Medicare population, worse off than they are today. If 
this bill passes, the country will want to know: Where was their 
Senator when the Senate debated a bill that left a quarter of all 
seniors with worse drug coverage than before the bill passed? Where was 
their Senator when the Senate debated a so-called premium support 
demonstration that jacked up senior citizens' premiums--senior citizens 
who live on a fixed income, who have a median income of about $14,000--
starting us down the road to the unraveling of Medicare? Where was 
their Senator when the Senate debated a bill that stacked the

[[Page S15037]]

deck against Medicare with a $12 billion slush fund for PPOs and much 
higher payments for HMOs than standard Medicare? Where was their 
Senator when the bill gave away $6 billion to health savings accounts 
that could jeopardize whole systems of health insurance?
  On issue after issue after issue after issue, this report abandons 
the bipartisan Senate bill and capitulates to the partisan right-wing 
House bill. On some issues it is even to the right of what the House 
passed.
  One of the most important of these destructive changes is a concept 
called premium support. It should really be called insurance company 
profit support or senior citizen coercion support. It replaces the 
stable, reliable, dependable premium that senior citizens pay for 
Medicare today with an unstable, unaffordable premium.
  Under premium support, the administration's own estimates show the 
average Medicare premiums will initially jump 25 percent. That is the 
administration's estimate. Several years ago the estimate was a 
whopping 47 percent.
  The truth is, no one really knows how high the Medicare premiums 
could rise. But rise they will. But we do know this. Over time, the 
increase will become higher and higher and higher and higher. That is 
just average premiums. Under premium support, how much you pay will 
depend on where one lives, and the amount could change dramatically 
from year to year. In Florida, you will pay $900 in Osceola and $2,000 
if you live in Dade County. This chart demonstrates the price of 
premium support. This is not my estimate of what the premiums are going 
to be. This is the estimate of the Medicare actuaries. If you live in 
Dade County, you will pay $2,050; if you live in Osceola, you will pay 
$1,000, twice as much. Explain that to someone who has a house in Dade 
County when they find out their neighbor is paying half of what they 
are paying because of premium support. This is just the beginning.
  Premium support is a vast social experiment using senior citizens as 
guinea pigs. If it works as the proponents intend, it will raise the 
premiums in Medicare dramatically and force senior citizens to join 
HMOs and PPOs to get prescription drugs. Why would anyone want to make 
the destructive changes to the Medicare Program that have served senior 
citizens so well for 40 years? The answer is a radical ideology. They 
say Medicare is bad. HMOs and PPOs are good.
  There is no mystery here. We know what this is all about. The 
principal supporters of premium support are those people who are 
strongly opposed to Medicare. Many of our colleagues--our friends, but 
our political adversaries--want to see the Medicare system withdrawn or 
destroyed. What do they support? Premium support. What has been 
accepted in this conference? Premium support.

  Some of the supporters of this program claim it's just a 
demonstration--nothing to get excited about. But it's not a 
demonstration. Under the terms of the demonstration, 7 million 
Americans could be forced into the program. Half the States have local 
areas where senior citizens could be forced to take part in this 
demonstration.
  And that's just today. Tomorrow it will be 10 million senior 
citizens, or 20 million, or the whole country. People say we can change 
it. Change it? We will have to pass a law to change it. We will have to 
come to the Senate and the House of Representatives to change it.
  This program will drain healthy seniors from Medicare and leave 
behind those who are sick and need help the most and it will send 
premiums for those who remain in traditional Medicare up through the 
roof. People who support this program make no secret what they want to 
do. They are on record as saying that Medicare is outdated and should 
be scrapped and seniors should be forced into HMOs. That is the same 
philosophy the President embraced when he initially proposed to give 
senior citizens a drug benefit only if they joined an HMO or PPO. 
Remember that? That is what this President wanted in March of this 
year. You only get the prescription drug program if you left the 
Medicare system and joined. We have carried that view forward with this 
program. I respect their opinions, but they should not use a 
prescription drug program as a Trojan horse to foist a bad idea on 
senior citizens.
  The second way this program privatizes and voucherizes Medicare is by 
providing vast subsidies to the private sector at the expense of 
Medicare. Payments to the private sector will be 109 percent of the 
payments to Medicare for the private companies. If we want competition, 
can someone explain to me why we have to give 109 percent of what we 
are giving to Medicare to the private companies? Who is paying for 
those billions of dollars? It is the Medicare population. They have 
paid in. They are paying in. They are the ones who will pay the 109 
percent.
  I thought competition was supposed to be an even playing field. Not 
in this bill. Medicare is at one level; the HMOs are at 109 percent of 
Medicare. That is what they are getting. Medicare overpays by 16 
percent because HMO enrollees are healthier. That is according to the 
CMS, the governmental institution that reviews these statistics. They 
find out seniors in private plans are 16 percent healthier than those 
in traditional Medicare. We ask for a level playing field yet they get 
109 percent of what Medicare receives. And the people they are caring 
for are a good deal healthier than those in Medicare.
  It does not stop there. The private plans have an additional $12 
billion slush fund in case they are having difficulty. The 109 percent 
is not enough. They have a healthier population. But still, if you need 
some help, just come my way. We have $12 billion here with which to 
reach out and help you.

  Medicare will pay at least 25 percent more to insurance companies for 
every senior citizen who joins an HMO and PPO than it would cost to 
care for the same person in Medicare. That is competition? That is 
competition, my friends? That is competition? That is what is in this 
conference report.
  The Medicare trust fund, which today's retirees paid into and rely 
on, will be robbed to lavish billions of dollars on HMOs. That money, 
that 25 percent additional premium, ought to be invested right back in 
terms of the drug program for our seniors.
  There is no truer indication of a nation's priorities than the 
investments it makes. The legislation the Senate considers today 
squanders that historic opportunity with reckless disregard for the 
Nation's health.
  No provision in the bill reveals its warped priorities more clearly 
than the $12 billion slush fund to lure HMOs into Medicare.
  Let's see if I have the reasoning behind this fund right. The 
supporters of this legislation are so convinced HMOs can provide health 
care to senior citizens more efficiently than Medicare that they have 
given HMOs a $12 billion payoff so they can compete. If they are so 
efficient, why do they need a handout?
  I guess the sponsors believe the 9-percent reimbursement bonus HMOs 
already get is not enough, and that is on top of the 16 percent boost 
HMOs get from serving a healthier population. It is a good thing HMOs 
are so efficient or we might have to bleed Medicare completely dry to 
pay for them.
  I wonder which HMO will be the lucky winner for the $12 billion 
Government handout. Will it be United Health Group, which made $1.4 
billion last year? Or maybe the $12 billion lottery winner will be 
WellPoint, whose profits last year were $703 million, and whose CEO 
made $22.4 million. Perhaps the sponsors of this legislation think he 
needs a handout to make ends meet.
  Anyone who reads the bill and comes to these provisions setting up 
this slush fund should be sickened at what they see. I challenge the 
supporters of this legislation to go to a senior center in their State, 
to go to the coffee shop on Main Street, to go to the churches and 
explain to the seniors they meet why their Medicare benefits are being 
stinted to give a $12 billion handout to HMOs. Explain to them why, 
with all the Medicare improvements that could be made with $12 billion, 
this bill decided the best use of that money is to inflate the profits 
of an HMO industry that is expected to make $6 billion this year.
  This bill not only undermines Medicare, we find 6 million senior 
citizens and disabled people on Medicaid--the poorest of the poor--will 
be worse off. Their out-of-pocket payments will be raised, and their 
access to drugs could be curtailed.

[[Page S15038]]

  Two to 3 million people with good employer retiree drug coverage will 
lose it, according to CBO estimates. This means almost a quarter of all 
Medicare beneficiaries will be worse off the day this bill passes.
  This legislation reimposes the asset test, retreats from the positive 
things in the Senate bill. Not only does this agreement put all the 
dreadful things in that harm senior citizens, it unravels Medicare by 
reimposing the asset test. Three million people who were protected with 
the Senate bill are cut off in this program.
  Finally, this conference puts in place an unrestricted program on 
health savings accounts, what used to be called medical savings 
accounts. They provide billions of new tax breaks for the healthy and 
the wealthy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed all but 2 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Worse, they encourage the healthy and wealthy to take 
high deductible policies, policies that require you to pay thousands of 
dollars before you get benefits. That is fine for people who can afford 
to put money into a tax-free savings account, but it is not good for 
ordinary working people.
  We all know what is going on here. Not a word in this controversy is 
about prescription drugs for senior citizens. We have an agreement on 
that. In the Senate we had a solid bipartisan compromise that would 
have helped millions of seniors pay for the drugs they so desperately 
need. It was not full coverage, but it was a good start. That is not 
the issue here. We could send the bipartisan Senate bill to the White 
House this afternoon. President Bush could sign it before supper. But 
Republicans will not do that. They are holding prescription drug 
coverage hostage to their plan to destroy Medicare. They could never 
pass that plan on its own, so they are adding it to the prescription 
drug bill. Shame on them.
  They say they have to destroy Medicare in order to save it. That is 
nonsense. There is nothing wrong with Medicare that Republicans can 
fix.
  There is still time to do what is right. Let's stand up for senior 
citizens and for prescription drug coverage of Medicare. Let's stand up 
against this conference report and these shameful assaults on Medicare.
  I will include at this point the organizations opposed to the 
Medicare conference report. Included are the National Committee to 
Preserve Social Security; the Alliance for Retired Americans; Families 
USA; Medicare Rights Center; Center for Medicare Advocacy; Consumers 
Union, National Senior Citizens Law Center; NETWORK: A Catholic Social 
Justice Lobby; American Public Health Association; the American 
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the American 
Federation of Teachers; NEA; Service Employees International Union; 
AFL-CIO; Older Women's League--there are close to 40 groups here. I ask 
unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Organizations Opposed to Medicare Conference Report

     National committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
     Alliance for Retired Americans
     Families USA
     US Action
     Medicare Rights Center
     Center for Medicare Advocacy
     Consumers Union
     National Health Law Program
     National Senior Citizens Law Center
     New York State Alliance for Retired Americans
     Seniors Citizens Law, Albuquerque, NM
     Legal Assistance to the Elderly, San Francisco, CA
     Medicare Advocacy Project of Greater Boston Legal Services
     Connecticut Association of Area Agencies on Aging
     PRO Seniors Health Care Consumer Rights Project
     NETWORK: A Catholic Social Justice Lobby
     American Public Health Association
     Arizona Center for Disability Law
     Center for Health Care Rights, Los Angeles, CA
     Florida Community Health Action Information Network
     Florida Legal Services
     Human Services Coalition of Miami Dade County
     United Food and Commercial Workers
     United Auto Workers
     American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
     American Federation of Teachers
     International Association of Fire Fighters
     National Education Association
     Service Employees International Union
     AFL-CIO
     International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
     International Longshore and Warehouse Union
     Transport Workers Union of America
     United Steelworkers of America
     National Association of Area Agencies on Aging and the Center 
         for Aging Policy
     Older Women's League
     National Taxpayers Union
     United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think Senator Cornyn is seeking 
recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor because I know this is 
the time that was set aside to talk about the nomination of MG Robert 
Clark and his promotion to lieutenant general. I want to talk about 
that in just a moment.
  I would say I have been interested in listening to the comments of 
the Senator from Massachusetts on another topic, on the Medicare 
conference report that will soon come to the floor. I must confess when 
that bill was first considered by this body, I could not support it. It 
was always my hope that once it went through the conference committee 
it would be improved. Indeed, from what I know of the bill so far, it 
has been. But I am so far undecided on how to vote on the conference 
report.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? 
What is the order of business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas yield for a 
question?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I can conclude my remarks, then I would 
be glad to yield for a question in the time that remains.
  My concern was about some of the comments made or the 
characterization made about the bill as being the product of some 
rightwing agenda. I do note in the announcement I heard, along with the 
American people, on Saturday, with the majority leader and Chairman 
Chuck Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee seated there, and also 
the Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, and others, including the 
ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, who is a 
Democrat, and John Breaux, the Senator from Louisiana, another 
Democrat, who both have been leaders on Medicare reform, and what was 
announced was a bipartisan conference committee agreement on 
principles.

  I do not know how this debate will ultimately pan out, but I do not 
believe the debate is advanced by, frankly, characterizing it as a 
product of some conspiracy or captive of some special interest agenda. 
I do know there are a lot of people who have been active on this issue 
on both sides of the aisle who support the bill. There are others who 
express concerns, and I want to explore those in the coming days in 
deciding how I might ultimately vote.
  But, Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about what I thought 
was the subject of the day and of this hour, which is the promotion of 
MG Robert Clark to lieutenant general.
  First and foremost, I am well aware of some of the concerns that have 
been expressed about Major General Clark. I do not believe these 
concerns are based on any facts, but perhaps sentiment alone.
  As we know, as the record reflects, in July 1999, a soldier named PFC 
Barry Winchell in General Clark's division was murdered by a fellow 
soldier at Fort Campbell in Kentucky. It is alleged this young man was 
murdered because he was perceived to be a homosexual.
  I am sure I speak for the entire Senate when I say such inhumane acts 
deserve every condemnation. My heart, and that of others, goes out to 
the friends and family of Barry Winchell as they mourn his untimely 
demise.
  The perpetrators of this heinous crime were, however, punished to the 
fullest extent of the law. As the convening authority for the court-
martial,

[[Page S15039]]

Major General Clark played a key role in ensuring the people who 
savagely killed Private First Class Winchell were, in fact, brought to 
justice.
  Unfortunately, there are those who want to unfairly blame major 
General Clark for this tragic death.
  This is a very serious charge and should not be made lightly. I 
commend Chairman Warner for his excellent work in making sure that this 
nomination has been carefully considered by the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. In fact, the committee spent more than a year looking into 
this tragic situation so that we could make sure we knew everything 
that could be known about the facts and circumstances involving Private 
First Class Winchell's death and any alleged culpability or 
responsibility that General Clark might bear for this tragedy.
  This is what we learned. The Department of the Army inspector general 
conducted a full investigation into the facts and circumstances of the 
death of Private First Class Winchell at Major General Clark's request. 
The inspector general also conducted an overall command climate 
assessment at Fort Campbell which, as Chairman Warner pointed out, 
consisted of, at the time, about 25,000 soldiers. Neither the 
investigation nor the command climate assessment found that Major 
General Clark was in any way responsible for this sad event. The 
record, in fact, demonstrates that General Clark conducted himself as a 
consummate professional, before and after the homicide. He adopted 
enhanced unit level training programs to ensure that Department of 
Defense policy was understood and implemented. And he repeatedly took 
personal action to communicate the requirements of the proper conduct 
and respect each soldier deserves.
  The murder of Barry Winchell was indeed a tragedy. But it would be 
wrong to allow the career of a great American soldier to be ended over 
false allegations of some vague perceived shortcomings, when it is 
clear that he joins all of us in condemning the despicable actions of 
the drunken soldier that took Barry Winchell's life.
  General Clark is more than worthy of promotion to lieutenant general. 
A San Antonio native, General Clark is a graduate of Texas Tech 
University and, like many brave Texans, he chose to serve his country 
in a military career. In fact, 1 out of every 10 men and women in 
uniform today is from the State of Texas, something of which we are 
immensely proud. What a career General Clark has had, spanning more 
than three decades on as many continents. Among other decorations, 
General Clark has received the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion 
of Merit with four Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star for Valor, and 
the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster for his service.
  To my mind, these achievements alone would merit his promotion. His 
record demonstrates that he has been a fine officer and, indeed, a 
great American patriot.
  But there is also this: When Major General Clark was only First 
Lieutenant Clark, barely a year in uniform, he was serving in Vietnam 
as the first platoon leader of Company A, the Second Battalion of the 
8th Calvary, the 1st Calvary Division. As his men were being extracted 
from hostile territory following a ground reconnaissance mission, they 
were engaged by enemy mortar fire, and the first two rounds caused 
heavy casualties, including Lieutenant Clark. A lesser soldier might 
have faltered in this situation, but even though he was wounded, 
Lieutenant Clark did not forget his foremost duty was to his own men. 
With total disregard for his personal safety, for his wounds, 
Lieutenant Clark put himself in the line of mortar fire again to carry 
wounded members of his company out of harm's way. He bravely moved from 
position to position, urging his men on until help arrived.

  For his wounds, Lieutenant Clark was awarded the Purple Heart; for 
his valor, the Bronze Star.
  General Clark has literally bled for his country. He has put his life 
on the line for his men and, yes, for us. He has dedicated himself to 
defending American freedoms against all enemies. In short, he is a true 
American patriot.
  There are brave young men and women who today are doing exactly the 
same thing that General Clark was doing then: fighting for the cause of 
freedom and democracy in the ongoing war on terror. They are serving a 
just cause with bravery and dedication. I can think of no better leader 
than Major General Clark to serve as a living example to them, the next 
generation of American heroes.
  I yield back any remaining time to the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Minnesota is to 
be recognized next. Is there a time agreement, to clarify my own 
understanding?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama controls 29 minutes 
at this point. The minority controls almost 20 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the agreement, 15 of the minority's 20 
minutes is pledged to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I see. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank my colleague from Alabama. I had not intended to 
interrupt my distinguished colleague from Texas with whom I have 
traveled to Iraq and other places, but I misunderstood exactly where we 
were, given the subject matter that was being discussed. I apologize 
for the interruption. I will focus my remarks on this matter because it 
is one that is deserving of all the attention and concern of the 
Members of this body, and it is a very difficult matter, one that I 
wish we didn't have to confront in this Chamber and one I wish we 
didn't have to confront in this country.
  But we do. We have a general with, generally, a very distinguished 
record, who now has been nominated for promotion to a very high office, 
commanding general of the Fifth Army. I have the greatest respect for 
the top echelon of our military command, as I have come to watch them, 
work with them, see their dedication and their professionalism and 
their compassion and concern for the men and women under their command. 
I regret having to raise these questions about any one of them.
  But we have a dead American soldier on the other hand, a young man 
who lost his life while in uniform, while in the service of his 
country. He wasn't murdered in Iraq, as some of our brave soldiers are 
these days, or in Afghanistan, or somewhere else. He wasn't in a 
training accident, as some soldiers from Minnesota have been, in this 
country or abroad.
  He was murdered. He was murdered by his own fellow American soldiers. 
His crime? His crime was that he was perceived and believed to be gay. 
I use that word ``crime'' rhetorically because I don't believe--I don't 
think Americans believe--that the sexual preference of an individual is 
a crime or should be a crime. It is not a crime in this country, 
punishable by death.
  That can only happen in a country such as Iraq, or some country with 
a vicious totalitarian regime, where if someone is different in any way 
and somebody decides it is wrong, they are not only excluded by society 
or discriminated against, but they are harassed, tortured, or executed. 
But not in the United States of America.
  However, it happened in this country at Fort Campbell, KY, in 1999, 
under General Clark's command. The soldiers who committed that terrible 
crime have been prosecuted, convicted, and are serving sentences.
  The military system that allowed that atrocity to occur remains. It 
is a system which permitted a succession of actions--from taunts, 
humiliations, bullying, all sorts of prejudice, immoral and illegal 
behavior--to occur and recur. What happened as a consequence? Nothing. 
Nothing. Nothing, unfortunately, is what happens most of the time in 
the Army of this country today.
  I am very proud of that Army in many respects, but I am not proud of 
an Army, or any other institution in this country, that permits 
discrimination against men and women because of their sexual 
preference. It is just that nothing usually happens when young women 
are assaulted and raped at the Air Force Academy--another matter we are 
dealing with on the Armed Services Committee. Their ``crime'' is that 
they are women.

[[Page S15040]]

  Women have been admitted to the Air Force Academy for 30 years and 
have been flying side by side in airplanes, and taking all of the 
risks, and doing as well as their counterparts. But they are being 
assaulted and raped time after time. We have discovered that at the Air 
Force Academy, what has usually happened to the perpetrators of those 
crimes is very little or nothing.
  These are impressionable young men and women in our Armed Forces--
most of them. They are outstanding young men and women. I have 
interviewed a number of them. I think all of us have that 
responsibility. I find, when I have the opportunity to interview young 
men and women who are seeking admission to or nomination to our 
military academies, that they are really fine young men and women. 
There is a lot of competition to get in. When I have those interviews, 
when I am talking to other young men and women in uniform as I travel 
back and forth, I don't see these kinds of attitudes. I don't see young 
men and women who are looking at their fellow soldiers with this kind 
of prejudice or are considering these kinds of atrocities.
  I just visited, in Minnesota over the weekend, a soldier who had one 
side of his arm shredded while serving in the Iraqi theater. He is 
recovering, thank God. He is a 21-year-old young man. He will recover. 
Another young Minnesotan lost most of his right leg, but he has great 
spirit and morale and he will live a great life.
  But I have also visited parents of young men and women who are not 
recovering, who are not coming home because they paid the ultimate 
price for their service. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and when 
I look at the reports and the casualty figures of the brave young 
Americans who are being injured or wounded or maimed or who died in 
combat, I don't see categories of ``heterosexual'' or ``gay'' or 
``lesbian'' and I don't see ``women'' or ``men.'' I see American 
soldiers, with the same kind of blood and bodies. All they are asking 
is an equal opportunity to serve their country, to risk their lives in 
the service of their country--even to die in the service of their 
country.

  Amazingly enough, that is what these young women who are going to the 
Air Force Academy, and the young men and women entering the Armed 
Forces, who have a same-sex affinity--that is what they want, the same 
opportunity to fight, to be heroic, and even to die for their country.
  That is what makes it so inexplicable and inexcusable and 
unforgivable when they are discriminated against, when they are treated 
the way they are, and when they have nowhere to turn.
  So who is responsible? Who is accountable? Who loses a rank or a 
promotion or a star because a gay soldier was murdered under his 
command? General Clark's actions following that atrocity were 
questionable and, I would say, barely marginal. General Clark's actions 
in many other instances throughout his distinguished career have been 
extraordinary, heroic, and commendable, and I salute him for them. But 
it wasn't only his actions after this atrocity that were called into 
question; it was the actions and inaction before this occurred, which 
permitted in this environment of opportunities for repeated 
discrimination and harassment--for an NCO who was clearly unfit to be 
responsible for impressionable young men who, by his own conduct--or 
misconduct--showed them how not to treat a fellow soldier. That is what 
concerns me about this today.
  I expect we will confirm General Clark's promotion. He will go on, 
and I hope he performs with great distinction, as I believe he will, as 
a commanding general of the 5th Army. But what is going to happen to 
all the other gay and lesbian soldiers out there? What kind of message 
are we sending to them? What kind of message do we send to the young 
women who get raped at the Air Force Academy when they see those who 
commit the terrible acts being promoted? What happens to a military's 
network of people when those promotions occur untouched by these kinds 
of atrocities, and eventually they are the military command or they are 
throughout the military command? How are we ever going to change what 
is going on in these situations if no one is held accountable, if there 
is no consequence for not doing what a commander should do--what in 
some instances they are required by law to do?
  Regardless, common sense and decency and morality would tell them 
that anybody responsible for the lives of young people ought to keep 
people from ganging up or abusing or assaulting or picking on or 
murdering a fellow human being--not to mention a fellow soldier but a 
fellow American citizen. What happens to all of us when we let that go 
on?
  As I said earlier, I think the U.S. military is outstanding in so 
many respects. It is that institution where, historically, young men 
and women have been able to come from all over the country, all 
different backgrounds; it is the great opportunity provider. It doesn't 
matter if your parents don't have any money or if you don't have much 
education; you can find yourself and become somebody and either serve 
with great distinction and make it a career or you can come back into 
society and do just as well. But you are not going to be that kind of 
person or that kind of professional or that kind of citizen or leader 
of this country if you are learning that is what happens, and that is 
OK, and those who do it get promoted, and those who are the victims 
suffer the terrible consequences.
  That is a terribly destructive message to those individuals, a 
terribly destructive result to our Nation; and if this body means the 
concerns it expressed here--and I take them at good faith, but if we 
mean that, we are not going to be satisfied, and we should not be, by 
doing nothing other than promoting this general today.
  We owe it to those men and women who have suffered, and those who 
have lost their lives through these atrocities, to take responsibility 
and tell the military, because we are the civilian command, that we are 
not going to do it; the buck stops here because no one else will, that 
we are going to insist on an armed forces that reflects, represents, 
and defends the standards of the basic decency the founding principles 
of this country that all men and women are created equal, they are 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among 
them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to 
defend their country and be a patriot and not have somebody attacking 
them, humiliating them, or murdering them because of who they are.

  That is the responsibility of leadership. That starts at the top, all 
the way down. It does not come from the bottom because that is where 
the base level is. It has to come from the top, from the commanders, 
from the civilians who are responsible for the system which they 
command and for those who are putting their lives, their hopes, their 
dreams, and their careers on the line. We have a lot of work to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for 
yielding me a few minutes to discuss the nomination of GEN Robert 
Clark. I rise in support of the nomination. This is a very sensitive 
issue and it is one that needs to be dealt with in the right way by 
this body, and I think it has been.
  The tragic death of PVT Barry Winchell should never have occurred, 
nor should any murder of that sort. The fact is, once it did occur, 
General Clark did everything within his power, first, to see that 
justice was done.
  During the course of seeing that justice was done, there was a review 
of all of his procedures and regulations that were in place at Fort 
Campbell relative to the circumstances that led up to this unfortunate 
death. General Clark was somewhat handicapped by not being able to 
speak out openly and publicly after the death because he was a 
convening authority for the court-martial and therefore he could not 
really come forward and have a whole lot to say about the facts and 
circumstances leading up to the death of Private Winchell.
  The fact is that he did make some changes in the procedures. He did 
make sure other regulations that had been in place prior to this 
unfortunate death

[[Page S15041]]

were enforced to an even greater degree than at the time this incident 
occurred.
  It is truly a tragic situation that was of great concern to General 
Clark. I have had the opportunity to visit with him on a couple of 
different occasions, and one does not have to talk with him very long 
to see the concern in his eyes and in his heart relative to the death 
of Private Winchell.

  I have also had the opportunity to meet with Private Winchell's 
parents. Again, we expressed to them deep sorrow and that our prayers 
go out to them. No matter what, we cannot bring their son back. I think 
we do need to make sure that as we move through this process we review 
what was done relative to the facts and circumstances leading up to 
this terrible murder and the facts and circumstances as they occurred 
after the death of Private Winchell.
  As I reviewed this situation with General Clark and as I looked at 
the IG investigation that he ordered to take place after the death 
occurred and after the court-martial was completed, it is pretty 
obvious that he did everything he could have done to ensure that 
justice was done and that the atmosphere surrounding the troops at Fort 
Campbell was not poisoned and everybody was treated in an equal and 
fair manner.
  It is very unfortunate that this situation had to occur, but at the 
same time it is very important that we make sure the procedures of the 
Army are followed very closely, and they were. It is very important 
that we make sure the sensitivity directed towards the family has taken 
place, and I believe it has. It has not been a perfect situation. 
General Clark, just as any officer or any individual in the corporate 
structure of any company in America, can look back on a situation as 
tragic as this and say that maybe they should have done something a 
little bit differently. The fact is, General Clark has always provided 
strong leadership during his career in the U.S. Army, and I think, once 
again, he exhibited strong leadership.
  He did everything within his power to see that justice was done and 
to see that appropriate rules and regulations were put in place where 
they needed to be and that they were carried out to the highest degree. 
So I rise in support of GEN Clark, and I hope my colleagues will see 
fit to confirm his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will vote against the nomination of 
Major General Robert T. Clark to the rank of Lieutenant General and to 
the position of Commander, United States Fifth Army.
  Former President Harry Truman placed a sign on his desk in the Oval 
Office that read ``The Buck Stops Here.'' As Commander in Chief of the 
United States Armed Services, President Truman took full responsibility 
for every action that took place under his watch, at every rank. He 
never shifted blame, and he never accepted failure.
  The same, cannot be said for General Clark.
  In 1999, while General Clark was the commanding officer at Fort 
Campbell in Kentucky, Private First Class Barry Winchell was bludgeoned 
to death with a baseball bat by a fellow soldier who believed that 
Private Winchell was gay.
  Did General Clark immediately accept responsibility for this terrible 
incident? Did he use his position of authority to stamp out the hateful 
and dangerous climate of anti-gay sentiment on the base?
  No, he did not. Instead, General Clark claimed that there wasn't 
anything wrong on his base, denying that a vile culture of hate and 
harassment against gays had been pervasive for some time. But his 
sentiments do not jibe with reports from soldiers at the base detailing 
widespread harassment of soldiers thought to be homosexual and the 
ubiquitous presence of anti-gay graffiti.
  The hazing and harassment that Private Winchell experienced before 
his murder were so pernicious that he bravely reported these episodes 
to the inspector general. This was a very risky course of action 
because it could have led to Private Winchell's discharge under the 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy.
  On his departure from Fort Campbell, General Clark declared, ``There 
is not, nor has there ever been during my time here, a climate of 
homophobia on post.'' Tell that to Barry Winchell's family.
  Apparently, the buck did not stop with General Clark. Instead of 
addressing the problem of homophobia at Fort Campbell, General Clark 
ignored it. Immediately after Private Winchell's murder, General Clark 
remained silent. He did not condemn anti-gay behavior on his base. He 
refused to meet with gay rights organizations who simply wanted to 
address the homophobia prevalent there. Surprisingly, General Clark 
failed to request the psychological and training services provided by 
the Army on how to address anti-gay harassment after the murder.
  General Clark even delayed meeting with Private Winchell's family--
despite their repeated entreaties--for almost 4 years after his murder. 
I find this particularly inexplicable and inexcusable.
  The tragic murder of Private Winchell was not the only problem 
occurring at Fort Campbell. According to an Inspector General review of 
the base, Fort Campbell suffered from low morale, dilapidated barracks 
in need of repair, inadequate health care, and significant problems 
with underage drinking.
  Today, the Senate faces the decision whether to promote General Clark 
to a very high-ranking position in the U.S. military. This position 
requires proven leadership skills.
  I do not think that General Clark showed leadership at Fort Campbell, 
either before or after Private Winchell was murdered. He let Private 
Winchell down. He passed the buck.
  I rise today to say that General Clark's lack of leadership at Fort 
Campbell dissuade me from supporting his promotion. I believe this 
promotion sends the wrong message about what we expect from our 
commanding officers, especially now in a time of war.
  I served in the Army Signal Corps in Europe during World War II. Over 
the course of my three years of service, I never encountered a superior 
officer who avoided responsibility for his soldiers or their actions. 
Each and every one of my commanding officers expected and demanded the 
best from me; their leadership, in turn, inspired me to do my best.
  I don't think Major General Clark inspires such dedication and 
service. Therefore, I will vote against this nomination and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of MG Robert 
T. Clark to the rank of lieutenant general. The facts surrounding his 
conduct, prior to and after the murder of PFC Barry Winchell, raise 
questions about his leadership and judgment that have not been answered 
to my satisfaction.
  The Inspector General of the Army, while clearing Major General Clark 
of fostering a hostile environment at Fort Campbell, raised serious 
issues about discipline at the base. Furthermore, some of Major General 
Clark's actions after Private Winchell's murder raise legitimate 
questions about his fitness for higher command. In the immediate 
aftermath of the murder, for example, a public affairs officer at the 
base issued a statement describing the murder as a ``physical 
altercation in a post barracks.'' This gross distortion of the facts 
was not corrected. In fact, Private Winchell had been asleep at the 
time his murderer struck, goaded on by other soldiers. General Clark 
took no steps to correct this claim in public, and later defended his 
action as in keeping with his mandate not to prejudice the ongoing 
investigation. Regrettably, these actions leave the appearance of a 
general officer who did not want the negative attention that would 
result from a hate crime under his command.
  General Officers are rightly held to incredibly high standards of 
conduct, and they should be. The men and women under their command are 
worthy of no less. In this case, Major General Clark appears to have 
come up short, as evidenced by the Senate Armed Services Committee's 
failure to pass this nomination unanimously. Instead of clarity, the 
nomination process has left us with lingering concerns

[[Page S15042]]

about the general's fitness for higher command.
  Mr. President, I recognize and appreciate Major General Clark's long 
service in the Armed Forces of our country. But there remain too many 
legitimate questions about his leadership and judgment stemming from 
his command of the 101st Airborne at the time of Private Winchell's 
murder to confirm his nomination to the rank of lieutenant 
general.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to speak today on the nomination 
for promotion of Major General Robert T. Clark and the broader issue of 
the Department of Defense's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. The 
unusually lengthy and controversial nomination of General Clark has, 
once again, brought attention to the failure of the Pentagon's policy 
towards gay servicemembers. It is high time that we stop this policy of 
codified discrimination against our brave servicemen and women who 
happen to be gay.
  I fear that this policy may have been a contributing factor in the 
June 5, 1999, brutal murder of PVT Barry Winchell at Fort Campbell, KY, 
a base commanded by General Clark. I will not reiterate the facts of 
that case at this time, but I will say that there are strong 
indications that there was a pervasive and hostile anti-gay climate at 
Fort Campbell both before and after the tragic murder of Private 
Winchell and that the base leadership, including General Clark, appears 
to have done little, if anything, to address it.
  Mr. President, the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has failed. It 
failed to give Private Winchell useful options to combat the harassment 
he faced during the months prior to his murder. It failed to force 
General Clark to take effective action to eliminate the anti-gay 
climate at Fort Campbell. And it continues to fail to stop the 
discrimination and harassment faced by our brave gay servicemembers.
  I want to take this opportunity to urge the Pentagon to begin 
instituting changes to its policy towards gay servicemembers. The 
Pentagon should provide, at a minimum, a safe place for gay and lesbian 
servicemembers to report harassment without fear that they will be 
kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. This 
modest step would be one small way to honor the memory of Private 
Winchell and to prevent what happened to him from ever happening again.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the promotion of 
Major General Robert T. Clark to Lieutenant General in the United 
States Army, which is pending consideration by the Senate. On October 
23, 2003, the Senate Committee on Armed Services voted to favorably 
report General Clark's promotion for consideration by the Senate. The 
vote taken was a voice vote. I asked, however, that the record reflect 
that had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted to oppose this 
promotion.
  I have deep respect and admiration for our military leaders. I have 
often said that anyone who achieves the rank of a flag or general 
officer deserves a Ph.D. for the amount of education and training they 
have successfully completed to attain such distinguished rank. In my 
capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the co-
chair of the Senate Army Caucus, I have had the privilege of working 
with many of our Nation's most respected military leaders.
  This has been a difficult decision for me. General Clark's promotion 
has been pending consideration before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee for 14 months. Military promotions are usually very simple to 
consider, and are rarely troublesome or controversial. I normally do 
not hear from my constituency about a military promotion. In this case, 
however, I was contacted by a number of my constituents asking me to 
oppose General Clark's promotion, primarily for his actions as 
Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, KY, 
during a difficult time when PFC Barry Winchell was murdered. For this 
reason, I made sure that I had the opportunity to review as much 
material as possible pertaining to General Clark's career as well as 
the facts surrounding the incident that led to Private First Class 
Winchell's death.
  In March 2003, I joined some of my colleagues in writing a letter to 
the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee to request information regarding the specific 
actions General Clark took to eliminate the climate of anti-gay 
harassment that existed at Fort Campbell prior to Private First Class 
Winchell's death; statements General Clark made regarding antigay 
harassment to officers, soldiers, and the public; the policies he 
promulgated addressing this issue; other steps he took to prevent 
further acts of violence and harassment; how he handled the Winchell 
case in comparison to other serious crimes occurring during his 
command; and his response, as well as the response of those around him, 
to requests by Private First Class Winchell's family to meet with him. 
I reviewed the information provided and participated in an executive 
session held on October 23, 2003, where General Clark was available for 
questions.
  After reviewing all of the information and listening to General 
Clark's testimony, I decided that I could not support his promotion to 
Lieutenant General. General Clark's professional record reflects many 
distinguished accomplishments as a military officer. However, I remain 
concerned about his lack of what I believe to be leadership qualities 
that are necessary for today's military leaders.
  I remain disturbed by General Clark's continued reliance on lack of 
knowledge regarding misconduct and antigay harassment on post as a 
rationale for his lack of action. General Clark had been in command of 
the 101st Airborne Division for 17 months prior to Private First Class 
Winchell's death. While I understand a commanding general is not 
responsible for the individual actions of his soldiers, I firmly 
believe that a commanding general sets the tone on an installation and 
can influence what his soldiers believe will be considered 
``acceptable'' behavior. I was disturbed to learn of repeated instances 
of underage drinking and harassment, and of the assessment, 
particularly of those soldiers in Private First Class Winchell's unit, 
of the command climate prior to Private First Class Winchell's death.
  I am also disturbed by General Clark's refusal to take responsibility 
for the incident. During his tenure as Chief of Staff of the Army, 
General Eric Shinseki took responsibility for what happened to Private 
First Class Winchell. This reflects official Army policy that 
commanders at all levels are accountable for everything their command 
does or fails to do. As a leader, I believe General Clark should have 
taken responsibility or expressed accountability for the circumstances 
that led to this Private First Class Winchell's death.
  I believe his failure to initiate a meeting with Private First Class 
Winchell's family reflects poor leadership on his part. His position as 
convening authority did not prevent him from meeting with the parents 
of a soldier murdered on an installation over which he had command and 
responsibility.
  Again, General Clark's record reflects that he has led a 
distinguished military career. However, I do not believe his actions as 
the Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, 
KY, warrant his promotion to lieutenant general.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this has been a very difficult nomination 
for the Armed Services Committee. We worked very hard for over a year 
to ensure that we developed all of the relevant facts so we could make 
an informed decision. In fact, this nomination was first sent to the 
Congress in the last session and then was resubmitted in this session.
  It is totally appropriate that we took this time to address Major 
General Clark's nomination because PFC Barry Winchell, a soldier 
serving in Major General Clark's command at Fort Campbell, was brutally 
murdered by another soldier on July 5, 1999.
  Fort Campbell is a large fort, perhaps 25,000 soldiers and 46,000 
family members. We were interested in what the command climate was in 
Major General Clark's command, particularly as it related to his 
command's implementation of the Department's Homosexual Conduct Policy. 
We also wanted to see how Major General Clark responded after the 
murder.

[[Page S15043]]

  Major General Clark asked the Army Inspector General to conduct an 
investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the murder. 
The Inspector General conducted this investigation and also conducted 
an assessment of the command climate at Fort Campbell before the 
murder. Neither the investigation nor the command climate assessment 
found fault with Major General Clark's actions.
  We met with Private Winchell's family. We met with Major General 
Clark on a number of occasions. We met with other Army officials. We 
met with organizations and individuals who expressed an interest in 
this nomination. So under Senator Warner's leadership, I believe our 
committee has given full consideration to the nomination of Major 
General Clark and the events which have to be described as tragic when 
considering that nomination.
  Every one of us, every human being who has knowledge of this 
incident, is appalled by the brutal murder of a soldier sleeping in his 
barracks. So we first wanted to look at, again, the incident and the 
command climate prior to the incident. We reviewed the Inspector 
General's report that stated that the chain of command, from commanding 
general through company leaders, responded appropriately to matters 
with respect to the enforcement of the Department of Defense Homosexual 
Conduct Policy.
  One of the most difficult issues had to do with the statement of 
Private Winchell's family that they requested a personal meeting with 
Major General Clark and they did not receive a personal meeting with 
him.
  I think the fact they made that request and it was not complied with 
was troubling to all of us. As we dug into it, we heard from Major 
General Clark on this issue. He looked us in the eye and said he never 
received such a request. That is not to say the request was not made. 
It is to say that I think most of us believed Major General Clark when 
he said that request was never forwarded to him. What happened to that 
request we do not know, and perhaps nobody ever will know.
  Major General Clark wrote a letter to the family. It was a heartfelt 
letter. It was a personal letter about the death of their son. It was 
really a comment that he added in that letter, which was so personal 
and so heartfelt, that I think persuaded many of us that he was honest 
when he stated that there is no way he would not respond to a family 
request to meet with him.
  As others have mentioned, he did have a special responsibility, as 
the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, to ensure that justice 
was done and to make sure nothing he would say would in any way create 
error in that trial.
  The murderer, PVT Calvin Glover, was convicted of premeditated murder 
by the court-martial, which was convened by Major General Clark. He was 
sentenced to life imprisonment and, of course, a dishonorable discharge 
from the Army.
  Another soldier was convicted of obstruction of justice and making a 
false official statement and was sentenced to 12\1/2\ years confinement 
and a dishonorable discharge.
  To the extent that justice can ever be done following a brutal murder 
of this kind, justice was done in this case. It was done under the 
leadership of the convening authority, Major General Clark himself.
  In the end, looking at all the information that is available to us, I 
have concluded that we should confirm this nomination and that it would 
be appropriate, at the same time, however, for us to take note of the 
events relative to this nomination, that surround it, the length of 
time this nomination has been pending, all of the inquiries and 
investigations and reports which have been requested, and hope all of 
this together will lead to a different environment and a different 
climate in the unit at issue here.
  I ask for 1 additional minute, if I may, from the majority side.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator can use that from the majority side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Alabama.
  When we put all this together, the hope, I think of all of us, is 
that the kind of climate that apparently existed in that one unit, not 
known to Major General Clark--because the Inspector General found no 
evidence that he knew of any anti-gay climate in any of the units, much 
less that one. There was in one unit some anti-gay rhetoric which was 
immediately responded to by the captain in charge of that unit. As a 
matter of fact, the captain counseled the noncommissioned officer and 
put an immediate end to the anti-gay rhetoric. But that was not known 
to General Clark.
  For all these reasons, I think it is appropriate we now confirm this 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin for his work on 
this issue, and Senator Warner's efforts as the Chairman. Senator Levin 
and Senator Warner have discussed this issue in great detail. Senator 
Warner made clear he was going to take it seriously, that there would 
be ample opportunity to evaluate any questions that arose from these 
terrible circumstances, and that the facts would come out in committee 
and could be presented forthwith. That was done. We heard all of the 
information that was available. I would note it is time, now, to move 
forward.
  General Clark's nomination has been blocked for over a year now. He 
is a tremendously fine soldier. He is just not the one responsible 
here. I also should note that I do not think it is correct, as some 
have indicated, to say people who fail to adhere to DOD policy get 
promoted. General Clark acted aggressively against the climate and the 
actions that resulted in this terrible murder.
  In July of 1999, PVT Barry Winchell was a member of the 502nd 
Infantry Regiment. He was murdered in his bed as a result of a brutal 
assault by another private, Calvin Glover. Before his death, Winchell 
had been perceived as gay by Private Glover, and Winchell had 
complained about harassment in his company to superiors.
  I should note that there was evidence that a platoon sergeant had 
made insensitive comments about gays, but there was not evidence of 
command responsibility in any way.
  In December of 1999, after General Clark convened a court-martial and 
a trial was conducted, Private Glover was convicted of first-degree 
premeditated murder and was given life without parole. The individual 
who was Private Glover's buddy, who obstructed the investigation to 
some degree, was given 12 years in jail, without parole. He is serving 
that time.

  I know the Chair has served as a lawyer and clerk to Federal judges. 
General Clark was the convening authority for a general court-martial. 
He was the superior commander on a base with 25,000 people. We don't 
hold mayors responsible for crimes committed in cities of 25,000 
people. In fact, one of the highest crime rates in America is among 
young males. So, what we have in this base is 25,000 of the kind of 
people who, statistically, tend to get in more fights, more crimes, and 
commit more murders than anyone else. That is my experience as a 
prosecutor. I think it is indisputable that that is so.
  So it is therefore not possible for a commander of a 25,000 member 
facility or military base, to guarantee there are not going to be 
fights and even murders every now and then. Heaven help us, that they 
occur, and the climate ought to be set in a way that minimizes that. 
But we cannot hold every commander responsible for this, any more than 
we could hold a mayor responsible for a crime in a city.
  But what I wish to emphasize is that the general took a number of 
direct and dramatic actions to indicate, without question, his 
revulsion with this murder. He clearly stated his expectation that 
everybody at Fort Campbell would be treated with respect, and that 
violence of this kind is unacceptable. He was quite strong on that 
point.
  However, he was unfairly criticized for his actions following Private 
Winchell's death. The criticism was unfair because in the military he 
is the convening authority of the courts-martial. He is required, by 
the Uniformed Code of Military Justice to appoint the members of the 
courts-martial, and he has a duty to remain objective. He has to be 
careful that he does not conduct himself in a way that prejudices the 
officers he appointed to try the case.

[[Page S15044]]

  I served as a JAG officer for several years in the Army Reserve. I 
know a commanding officer has to be careful because the defense lawyers 
who defend soldiers charged with crimes can raise, as a defense to the 
trial, that the commander had prejudiced the trial by suggesting the 
defendant was guilty before he had a trial.
  General Clark testified at his confirmation hearing in the Senate 
Armed Services Committee that he was in regular contact with his staff 
judge advocate, his lawyer, advising him what he could say, and what he 
could not say.
  Some say he should have been more open, he should have been more 
condemning of this act, he should have been more aggressive. It is 
clear that he was acting under the legal direction of his staff judge 
advocate. In fact, his staff judge advocate was talking to the staff 
judge advocate in Washington, for the Department of Defense. They 
exhausted every means possible to ensure they conducted themselves 
properly. They sought to ensure that the trial was fairly conducted, 
and that if a conviction was obtained, as it was obtained, that the 
verdict would be upheld. It was.
  I just would want to say this is not so easy, as some would suggest, 
for him to be really aggressive in making comments about this while a 
trial is ongoing.
  Complaints were certainly made about his conduct afterwards. General 
Clark, who, if you met him, you would understand, is a man of great 
integrity, great decency, who wants to do the right thing, said: Look, 
I haven't done anything wrong. I believe I have conducted myself 
properly. But I am personally requesting that the inspector general 
investigate my conduct and my actions. I want him to come in here and 
investigate this situation to see if I have done anything wrong.

  Of course, the IG did investigate. An IG team conducted a thorough 
investigation into the command climate at Fort Campbell. This 
investigation of the command climate found that Major General Clark was 
not culpable of any dereliction or failure of leadership, as has been 
alleged by the Service Members Legal Defense Network--SLDN--which is an 
advocacy group that works to protect and ensure that homosexual 
soldiers are treated fairly in the military, as they have every right 
to be treated. They have a right to insist that they be treated fairly.
  It is important that people know about this crime. I know it is 
important that people understand how civilization sometimes is fragile 
and people lose discipline and do things they should never ever do.
  To highlight the problem that occurred at Fort Campbell, and to take 
action by an advocacy group--or by the military or any decent people, 
or for the Senate to take action in order to ensure that these kinds of 
things don't happen in future--there is no illegitimacy in that.
  One of the things that has troubled me in recent years in this Senate 
is that we feed on information that is sometimes provided by people who 
have an agenda. As a result of that, sometimes people are unfairly 
treated. Everybody deserves fair treatment. This private who was 
murdered did not deserve what happened to him. I also believe General 
Clark does not deserve some of the charges that have been made against 
him.
  A few other points; This group claims that Major General Clark failed 
to follow Federal law. There is no proof of that. There is no proof 
that he failed to provide a safe environment for soldiers--in fact, 
that claim has been rejected. They claim that he failed to exhibit 
leadership necessary for further promotion. After the inspector 
general's reviews were done, that proved not to be so.
  The allegations were that Major General Clark had allowed 
``significant levels of antigay harassment under [his] command,'' and 
that it allowed a command climate in which ``antigay harassment 
flourished''; it was just not true. The Army IG found sporadic 
incidents of the use of derogatory or offensive cadence calls used 
during marching. These problems which were quickly corrected and 
stopped as soon as they were discovered. It was clearly established 
that anti-homosexual comments were not the norm at Fort Campbell.
  There were allegations that there was anti-gay graffiti in the public 
areas around Fort Campbell. The Army inspector general found one 
latrine at a unit level and one in a public recreation center at Fort 
Campbell which had anti-gay comments on them. This was clearly not a 
common thing on the base. I suspect you would find these comments in 
some of the public bathrooms in cities and gas stations around America. 
It is wrong, but I don't think that should be something the general 
would be found to be responsible for. There is simply no way that he 
can protect against each and every one of those incidents.
  It was suggested that he took no action to deal with this problem. I 
have one document dated November 30, 1999--not long after the incident 
that occurred--in which General Clark wrote his command. He sent it to 
everyone basically on the base.

       Distribution A, Subject: Respect for all soldiers.
       Paragraph 1: The soldiers in the Army today are the best we 
     have ever had.

  I certainly agree with that.

       They are volunteers who merit our respect and they deserve 
     to be treated with dignity in a climate of safety and 
     security.

  He goes on to say:

       We can and will do more to ensure that our soldiers are 
     treated with dignity and respect. I accordingly direct that:
       All soldiers be briefed on the Department of Defense 
     homosexual conduct policy upon their formal in-processing at 
     Fort Campbell. When they come to the base.
       They are to be instructed on this policy of treating people 
     fairly and with respect. As an interim measure, every soldier 
     at Fort Campbell will receive the briefing.

  In addition, he goes on to note:

       This instruction will also include the contents of the 25 
     October 1999 memorandum from the commanding general . . .

  And another memorandum--both of which reiterate the roles and 
responsibilities of commanders regarding investigations of threats 
against or harassment of soldiers on the basis of alleged 
homosexuality;

       Subparagraph (c): All leaders will vigorously police the 
     contents of run and march cadences.

  They have always been a little bit risque over the years. But the 
general took aggressive action here.

       They will monitor the march and run cadences to ensure that 
     they are positive and devoid of profanity or phrases 
     demeaning to others.
       Subparagraph (d): All leaders will vigorously police the 
     content of training briefings, classes, lectures, and all 
     other instructions to ensure that they are devoid of 
     profanity or phrases demeaning to others.
       Subparagraph (3) Respect for others is an Army value and a 
     cornerstone of the discipline and esprit de corps and all 
     soldiers will be treated with dignity and respect. 
     Accordingly, I expect all Department of Defense, Department 
     of Army and Fort Campbell directives, policies and 
     regulations to be enforced by our leaders and adhered to by 
     our soldiers.
       Robert C. Clark, General.

  This is a superb soldier who served his country well in Vietnam. He 
was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. He was wounded in 
combat and refused to be evacuated until he got others out of the line 
of fire.
  He commanded the 3rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, that 
great division, during Operation Desert Storm, the last Gulf War. His 
proven leadership is clear.
  In the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ``Story of the 
Third Army in Desert Storm'' by Richard Swain, published in 1994, he 
talks about how General Clark's brigade moved rapidly to cut off the 
retreat of the Iraqi soldiers, facing tremendously bad weather. It was 
so bad that motorcycle troops were mired down, but he moved 
successfully anyway and seized the objective before other units were 
able to.
  He is a proven commander in combat. He is a proven commander in the 
peacetime Army. He has taken strong action to see that this kind of 
activity never happens again.
  I am proud of him. I am also proud to note that he obtained his 
master's degree at Auburn University, one of America's great 
universities. I had occasion to meet him and to see him testify at 
hearings. I thought he did a superb job. There was little doubt of his 
sincerity in this matter and his capability to be a great general 
officer.
  I thank the President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The majority leader.

[[Page S15045]]

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague, Senator 
Sessions, for really putting into perspective a lot of the things that 
have been said on the floor, allegations from the past but also with 
respect for this man who is a true hero, an American hero.
  I rise to support his elevation to the second highest rank in the 
U.S. Army as Commander of U.S. Army at Fort Sam Houston.
  On October 3, 1971, this young man, Robert E. Clark, first platoon 
leader of Company A, 2nd Battalion, 8th Calvary of the 1st Calvary 
Division, became an American hero.
  It was approximately 10:30 a.m. in Bin Tuy Province of the Republic 
of Vietnam. Company A was completing a reconnaissance mission. As they 
were being extracted, the men came under heavy fire. The first two 
enemy mortar rounds struck hard and inflicted heavy causalities, 
including wounding First Lieutenant Clark. At that time, at great risk 
to his own personal safety, and ignoring or at least putting aside his 
own wounds, First Lieutenant Clark ran forward into enemy fire to carry 
his fellow wounded soldiers back to cover.
  Throughout the battle he pressed on, moving from position to position 
to direct his men to lay down a constant stream of smoke in order to 
mark their position for the helicopters flying overhead. The record 
clearly shows First Lieutenant Clark's heroic action ensured the 
success of Company A's mission. For his bravery in combat and service 
in Vietnam, First Lieutenant Clark received a Purple Heart. He received 
two Bronze Stars, one for valor and one for service.
  In a letter of recommendation on behalf of Robert Clark, the company 
commander wrote:

       [First Lt Clark's] display of personal bravery and devotion 
     to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the 
     military service, and reflect great credit upon himself, his 
     unit, and the United States Army.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
letter of recommendation which lays out these events.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       On 3 October 1971, first Lieutenant Robert T. Clark, First 
     Platoon Leader Of Company (A), 2d Battalion (Airmobile), 8th 
     Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division, distinguished himself by 
     heroic action while on ground combat operations against a 
     hostile enemy force in Binh Tuy Province, Republic of 
     Vietnam. At approximately 1030 hours Company (A) were being 
     extracted after completing a ground reconnaissance mission, 
     when they were engaged by an undetermined size enemy force, 
     receiving enemy mortar fire. The first two mortar rounds that 
     impacted took a heavy toll of friendly casualties including 
     1LT Clark. Although wounded 1LT Clark with total disregard 
     for his own personal safety and his wounds exposed himself to 
     enemy mortar fire as he moved forward and assist in carrying 
     the other wounded members under cover. 1LT Clark continued to 
     expose himself as he moved from position to position 
     directing his men to lay down a constant screen of smoke 
     marking their position to Gunships giving them fire support. 
     1LT Clark's heroic action and aggressiveness, enabled the 
     mission to be a complete success. Resulting in one (1) enemy 
     soldier killed. His display of personal bravery and devotion 
     to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the 
     military service, and reflect great credit upon himself, his 
     unit, and the United States Army.

  Mr. FRIST. In a career spanning over 30 years, Robert T. Clark has 
consistently displayed that uncommon courage and leadership he showed 
on the battlefield in Vietnam. He has earned the admiration of all who 
know him, both in and outside of military life.
  GEN John Wickham, former Chief of Staff of the Army, says General 
Clark is unequivocally ``one of the most ethical, moral, people-
oriented and charismatic leaders I have ever known.''
  GEN John Keane, whom the senior Senator from Massachusetts so 
lavishly praised earlier, calls General Clark ``a man of great 
character. He's a great moral force and a very compassionate person. 
Simply stated, he's one of the Army's very best leaders.'' Those are 
the words of GEN John Keane.
  It is my honor to rise today and support this nomination of this 
outstanding soldier. General Clark has earned numerous awards for his 
extraordinary service, including four awards of the Legion of Merit, 
three Bronze Stars, the Purple Heart medal, four meritorious service 
medals, the Air Medal, the Air Commendation Medal, and numerous 
campaign service medals for service in Vietnam as well as Saudi Arabia.
  He has earned the Combat Infantryman's Badge, the Army Staff 
Identification Badge, the Parachutist Badge, the Ranger Tab, and the 
Air Assault Badge.
  During the gulf war, then Colonel Clark commanded the 3rd Brigade of 
the 101st Airborne. Under his leadership, the 3rd Brigade conducted one 
of the longest and largest airborne assaults in military history. More 
than 2,000 men, 50 transport vehicles, artillery, and tons of fuel and 
ammunition were air lifted at that time 50 miles into Iraq. Land 
vehicles took another 2,000 troops deep into the Iraqi territory. All 
of this was accomplished in 72 hours without a single American 
casualty. Only two Iraqi soldiers were killed and 22 wounded.
  With characteristic modesty, General Clark explained the brigade's 
truly remarkable success by saying, ``We're the first guys who ask them 
to lay down their weapons, and they did. It just took a little 
convincing.''
  General Clark earned a Bronze Star for his command of the historic 
mission.
  In 1998, General Clark was elevated to command the 101st Airborne 
Division at Fort Campbell, which, as most know, is situated on the 
border of Tennessee and Kentucky. Indeed, Fort Campbell can be 
described as a small to midsize city comprised of about 50,000 soldiers 
and civilians. There are homes, schools, a fire department. It is a 
complex and diverse place. During his 2-year tenure there--and I had 
the opportunity to meet with General Clark there on several occasions--
General Clark's reputation for fairness and compassion extended way 
beyond the base, well into the surrounding community.
  In February of 2000, the Clarksville City Council unanimously passed 
a resolution praising General Clark for his ``high standards of 
leadership, professionalism, and integrity.''
  The Montgomery County Board of Commissioners passed a similar 
resolution declaring:

       General Clark's reputation in the local communities is 
     highly acknowledged as one of the brightest, caring, and 
     respected division commanders that the Army has sent to our 
     local community.

  Indeed, General Clark is one of the finest men in uniform today. He 
currently serves as the acting commander of the 5th U.S. Army at Fort 
Sam Houston. I should mention, as an aside, that General Clark 
requested the assignment so that he could take care of his wife who 
suffers from a chronic illness.
  General Clark's peers call him ``a soldier's soldier.'' He descends 
from two generations of Clark men who have served the Army with 
dedication and honor.
  And thus, as I began a few minutes ago, I close by saying, and I do 
call him a true hero. I strongly support his elevation to the second 
highest rank in the U.S. Army.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is, Will 
the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Maj. Gen. Robert T. 
Clark to be Lieutenant General.
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________